Tragedy of Uncommon.human Relations 2013 Jonsen 271 94

7/27/2019 Tragedy of Uncommon.human Relations 2013 Jonsen 271 94

1/25

http://hum.sagepub.com/Human Relations

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/66/2/271The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0018726712466575

2013 66: 271Human RelationsKarsten Jonsen, Ahu Tatli, Mustafa F zbilgin and Myrtle P Bell

The tragedy of the uncommons: Reframing workforce diversity

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human RelationsAdditional services and information for

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 29, 2013Version of Record>>

by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 15, 2013hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/content/66/2/271http://hum.sagepub.com/content/66/2/271http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/66/2/271.full.pdfhttp://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://hum.sagepub.com/content/66/2/271.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.tavinstitute.org/index.phphttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://hum.sagepub.com/content/66/2/271http://hum.sagepub.com/


2/25

human relations66(2) 271294

The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0018726712466575

hum.sagepub.com

human relations

The tragedy of the uncommons:Reframing workforce diversity

Karsten JonsenIMD, Switzerland

Ahu TatliQueen Mary, University of London, UK

Mustafa F zbilginBrunel University, UKUniversit Paris Dauphine, France

Myrtle P BellUniversity of Texas at Arlington, USA

AbstractThis article presents a reframing of workforce diversity as a social tragedy. We draw onHardins concept of tragedy of the commons, which explored the conflicts betweenindividual and collective good. We identify two dilemmas that underscore the social

tragedy of diversity and explain why they prevent workforce diversity from progressing:(1) voluntarism and (2) individualism. We critique the simplistic models of managingdiversity and suggest an alternative conceptualization as a way forward. We advocate anapproach that captures the potential contradictions between individual and social goodand accounts for the role of multiple actors in tackling the tragedy of the uncommons.A reframing of organizational self-interest and collective interests in the context ofdiversity is presented and solutions to social tragedy of diversity are proposed.

Keywords

coercion, collectivism, individualism, social dilemma, tragedy of commons, voluntarism,workforce diversity

Corresponding author:Karsten Jonsen, IMD, 23 ch. de Bellerive Lausanne 1001, Switzerland.Email: [email protected]

466575HUM66210.1177/0018726712466575Human RelationsJonsen et al.2013


3/25

272 Human Relations66(2)

Introduction

In this article, we illustrate why and how workforce diversity should be reframed tocapture the tension between individual and collective interests, and repositioned as a

societal issue and a collective good. We examine the tragedy of workforce diversity,drawing on the concept of the tragedy of the commons, in which Hardin (1968)described a situation where a number of herders graze their herds on a limited area ofcommon grass. Each herder rationally decides to increase his or her herd size, whicheventually leads to disaster and a collapse of the commons, as consumption exceeds theavailable good (grass). This story illustrates the social dilemma between optimizationof individual and collective resources, interests and benefits.

We build on previous work on social dilemmas (Barry and Bateman, 1996; Schneiderand Northcraft, 1999), which has focused on the relationships between individual and

collective interests in the context of workplace diversity. Developing a societal per-spective, we refocus the debate on social dilemmas of workforce diversity on the con-tradictions between interests of organizations and society at large. Social dilemmashave been used extensively to describe the individual interest vis-a-vis the commongood, thus the individual has been the traditional unit of analysis (e.g. see Biel et al.,2008; De Cremer and Van Dijk, 2002; De Cremer et al., 2008). We argue for attentionto the contradiction between organizational and societal interests because organiza-tions experience the same fundamental conflict as do individuals. Following severalscholars (e.g. Demuijnck, 2009; French, 1996; Pies et al., 2009) we acknowledge theimportance of viewing organizations as a part of the community (Maak and Pless,2009), and argue for the need for corporations to recognize their societal role (Crozier,1964: 310). In the same way, there is a societal dimension to workforce diversity andits management in organizations (Dickens, 1997; Greene and Kirton, 2009; Healy etal., 2010; Litvin, 2006).

Social dilemmas are problematized in Hardins (1968) influential piece TheTragedy of the Commons, and have been referred to by scholars in many disciplinessuch as population control, economics, sociology and biology (Messick and Brewer,1983). Social psychologists and behavioural economists have long used social dilem-mas, such as the prisoners dilemma, extensively for research and experiments. Social

dilemmas (Tullock, 1974) include the problems associated with the provision of publicgoods (Dawes and Messick, 2000) and are characterized as having two properties(Dawes, 1980: 170). First, the social payoff to each individual or organization fordefecting behaviour is higher than the payoff for the cooperative behaviour, regardlessof what the other society members do. Second, all individuals or organizations in thesociety receive a lower payoff if all defect than if all cooperate. Wade-Benzoni et al.(1996: 111) express such dilemmas this way: When a large number of people makeself-interested choices, the costs accumulate. As a result, everyone is worse off than ifthey had decided not to act in their own self-interest. Social dilemmas are also some-

times referred to as social traps (e.g. Barry and Bateman, 1996; Platt, 1973) and can bedivided into two categories (see e.g. Van Dijk et al., 2009). Resource dilemmas concernthe scarcity of resources, while public good dilemmas concern the contribution to a

public good. The latter are particularly relevant to our reframing of workforce diversityas a societal issue.


4/25

Jonsen et al. 273

Workforce diversity is often perceived and treated by corporations as a strategicchoice (Jonsen et al., 2011a). Yet, the cumulative effect of dilemmas of workforcediversity is a social tragedy: if each business opts for non-meritocratic methods ofrecruitment and retention (e.g. based on homophily, discrimination and exclusion), and

does not seek to promote diversity at all levels, society is worse off. The social tragedyis induced by non-optimal division of labour and the myriad social problems and unrestthat potentially follow from many people being deprived of opportunities to use theirtalent and to realize their full potential. Workforce diversity is a public good because the

public has invested in educating and developing the quality and the skills of the work-force and because without an educated, skilled workforce that has equal opportunitiesin employment, a society will invariably be worse off.

Diversity literature has been heavily preoccupied with symptoms of inequality,including demographic distribution and headcounts (DiTomaso et al., 2007). There are

dozens of formulas for calculating diversity (e.g. Blaus), and the way it is counted, suchas fault lines, surface versus deep, relational demography, dyadic. However, there is aneed to explore societal solutions, as we are currently trapped in incrementalism andinstitutional interlocks related to diversity (Martin and Meyerson, 2008: 553). Interlocksoccur when change efforts in one institutional context are undermined by other institu-tions reluctance to change. Along with these interlocks, we cannot rely on the assump-tion that companies are working for the common good, as societal issues remain

peripheral to most companies (Porter and Kramer, 2011). Recent corporate scandals inthe not-so-diverse financial industry on Wall Street and elsewhere tragically, convinc-

ingly and repeatedly show the case in point. Focusing on social systems rather than ontheir individual components in isolation, may help our theorization out of interlocks.We reframe workforce diversity in terms of our conceptions of social dilemmas and

social tragedy and explore the tensions between organizational and collective interests.The uncommons in our title refers to individuals from less powerful or under-privileged

backgrounds. The word tragedy is believed to originate from the songs of sacrifice inancient Greece. Modern societies continue to make sacrifices of their uncommon mem-

bers, albeit in more subtle and covert ways. Persistent inequalities and mismanagementof diversity is one such case. We begin by explaining the concept of social dilemmas,

which generate social tragedies. Next, we elaborate the ways in which workforce diver-sity presents two dilemmas that lead to the tragedy of the uncommons. Finally, we offersolutions to overcome the social tragedy of workforce diversity. Drawing on zbilginand Tatli (2011), we focus on two trends associated with management of diversity: vol-untarism and individualism. We conceptualize these two prominent trends as dilemmasin the sense that they help generate the tragedy of workforce diversity by feeding intothe contradiction between organizational and social good. In doing so, we make a casefor reframing workforce diversity as a multi-faceted societal issue.

The tragedy of workforce diversityDiversity is a societal reality. Yet, a societal reality of diversity does not imply a respon-sibility to pursue diversity and equality among employees. As Kalev et al. (2006: 592)argue, [i]f diversity efforts are everyones responsibility but no ones primary


5/25


responsibility, they are more likely to be decoupled. Therefore, not only do we run therisk of tacit coordination merely to protect self-interests (see Van Dijk and De Cremer,2006; Van Dijk et al., 2009), by which organizations collectively do not care, we also runthe risk that organizations will only care if they are assured that other organizations do

the same. This is the key problem at the heart of the tragedy of workforce diversity.In fact, workforce diversity presents a social tragedy, because maximization of pay-

off for individual organizations may lead to collective irrationality (Kollock, 1998), andthe cumulative consequences of apparently rational organizational choices may be dis-astrous (Messick and Brewer, 1983) at the societal level. The social payoff to eachorganization for mismanagement of diversity (e.g. homophily, discrimination, andexclusion) is often considered higher in the short run than that of promoting diversityand inclusion at all levels (see Noon, 2007). If too many organizations choose to ignoreeffective and thoughtful management of diversity, this may leave large numbers of

people unemployed and marginalized, and their skills underutilized. In essence, thetragedy is that the inclusion of less powerful groups in the workforce at all levels would

be better for society as a whole. However, this societal interest may contradict with thestrategic choices of individual firms. For example, Richard (2000) found that highracial diversity for firms pursuing a growth strategy was related to higher productivity.For firms with other strategies, more diversity was related to lower productivity, how-ever. Richard (2000: 164) proposed that racial diversity does in fact add value and,within the proper context, contributes to firm competitive advantage. When the propercontext does not exist, a large number of organizations may make self-interested

choices, the costs accumulate and everyone is worse off.OLeary and Weathington (2006) argue that there is a need to change the academicand practitioner outlook in a way that goes beyond endlessly discussing workforcediversity and towards concentrating resources on managing diversity. Our proposed

perspective suggests refocusing the attention on the relationship between the organiza-tional self-interest and collective interest, and redistributing the resources accordingly.Corporations have become the most powerful institutions on the planet (Korten, 1995);

but instead of cocooning themselves in contented pockets of the planet where useful-ness is often unrelated to human communities (Gladwin et al., 1995: 898), corporations

should assume responsibility and accountability for their social, civil and politicalinvolvement (Matten et al., 2003).A radical change of perspective would require companies to have multidimensional

performance goals including accountability for equality, diversity and inclusion at work.Yet, having multidimensional performance goals may come at a cost of losing businessopportunities, especially in the short run (e.g. consumer boycotts against companies likeDisney and Pepsi due to their gay-friendly policies) (see also Kumar et al., 2002; Lambet al., 2005). If technical rationality and instrumental reasoning prevail in the upper ech-elons of corporations, then diversity is inherently difficult to sell by appealing to acompanys sense of justice, equality or fairness (Kersten, 2000). From a short-termorganizational perspective, the business case for diversity may pose a dilemma in theabsence of a centrally enforced strong legal case, and a societally imposed ethical case(see Dickens, 1997). In the following section, we explain two social dilemmas of work-force diversity: voluntarism (versus coercion) and individualism (versus collectivism).


6/25

Jonsen et al. 275

We explain that these two dilemmas lead to the tragedy of workforce diversity due to theconsequential contradictions they impose between individual and collective good.

The dilemma of voluntarism versus coercionWettstein (2009) illustrates that normative demands and expectations from corporationsare driven by voluntarism rather than coercive legal measures. The premise of volunta-rism lies in the belief that organizations, without recourse to coercive regulation, will

proactively pursue workforce diversity at all levels because it is in their interest to do so.However, as Greene and Kirton (2009) argue critically, voluntarism is offered as a wayto revitalize organizational efforts for creating inclusive, fair and diverse work environ-ments. The tension between voluntarism versus coercive measures presents a dilemma

because compliance to societal needs cannot be assured through voluntarism (Hardin,

1982; Latan, 1981). That is, there is an asymmetry between organizational interests andsocietal needs and therefore the willingness to pursue workforce diversity will vary tre-mendously. Some diversity scholars have argued that making a business case is the firststep in organizational commitment to diversity (e.g. Cox, 1991; Dobbs, 1996). Yet, sev-eral authors warn that the promise and the reality of a business case for diversity may bemore elusive and contradictory than diversity advocates had hoped for (Chrobot-Masonet al., 2009; Jayne and Dipboye, 2004; Joshi and Roh, 2008; Mannix and Neale, 2005).

The explanation of the business case for diversity, which is at the core of voluntarism,entails logical, causal and empirical inconsistencies. While there seems to be a business

case in terms of creativity and innovative outcomes, these advantages are often neutral-ized by process losses and increasing conflict levels (Stahl et al., 2010). Furthermore,

Noon (2007: 778) questions: If the business case for diversity were so compelling, whyare not all firms adopting it? Noon notes fatal flaws in the business case for diversity: a)that employers have a more short-term view than what may be required for the benefitsof diversity to take full effect; and b) that some benefits are either less beneficial thanthey might first appear, or they are not easily measured. A critical flaw in the businesscase is the time-range one has to assume when assessing it. If they are well-managed,diverse teams can outperform homogeneous teams, but they may experience higher

number of conflicts in the early phases of their inception (Watson et al., 1993).The business case for diversity has been criticized for contributing to the status quo(Litvin, 2002) because it can be used to avoid dealing with moral and ethical issues sur-rounding diversity and to resist regulation (Tatli, 2011). Several critical theorists, such asKersten (2000), have argued that the business case for diversity cannot serve as a catalystfor deep-rooted change, as it creates an iron cage of reality as logical and rational. In otherwords, the business case facilitates an adherence to a worldview in which reality is pre-dictable, controllable, and in which people and objects are considered valuable only to theextent to which they can contribute to a desirable outcome (Janssens and Zanoni, 2005;

Lorbiecki and Jack, 2000). An excessive focus on the business case may eventually short-circuit the ability to focus on alternative and perhaps more structural constructions ofreality. In fact, Wrench (2005) has argued that the business imperative has removed themoral imperative for equal opportunity action, such that fighting discrimination may only

be seen as important if there is a recognizable business case for it. Not only is it


7/25


illusionary to think there is a continuous match between business needs and the rights andneeds of disadvantaged groups (Dickens, 1997), the business case often represents thewrong debate.

The focus on voluntarism based on a business case for diversity has created a blind

spot towards other arguments or reasoning. Some corporations may not see a businesscase for diversity and may sense no urgency or external pressure in their immediate envi-ronment to change the composition of their workforce (Jonsen et al., 2011b). Voluntarismis one of the tragedies of workforce diversity because through its emphasis on self-interestof the companies based on the business case, it contributes to the polarization of theorganizational and collective interests. In doing so, voluntarism legitimizes and justifiesfirms acting solely on the basis of self-interest without being constrained by coerciveregulation (e.g. equality legislation). Voluntarism leads to the tragedy of the uncommonswhere workforce diversity becomes merely a matter of optional choice for the firms, and

is disconnected from its impact on the collective good.

The dilemma of individualism versus collectivism

The second dilemma of workforce diversity relates to the treatment of employees asisolated individuals at the expense of any collective framing of diversity. The gospel ofindividualism, which was predicted to fade sooner or later because it only had the condi-tions necessary to thrive as a continuous mode of social functioning in the USA(Whitehead, 1948), has colonized the welfare regimes of Europe since the 1980s (Young,

2000). Individualization of difference has been one of the building blocks of the newmanaging diversity paradigm, which discursively replaced the more collectivistapproaches of equal opportunity and affirmative action in the post-1980s (e.g. Glenn,2007; Jonsen et al., 2011a; Kirton and Greene, 2009). The ideology of individualism hasmajor implications for workplace diversity and equality as individualism depoliticizesand essentializes difference, and silences systematic inequalities (Kelly and Dobbin,1998). As a result, organizations tend to define diversity on individual terms and ignorestructures of power and inequality (Tatli, 2011). Agocs and Burr (1996) found that thelanguage of diversity training programmes is replete with words such as diversity and

multiculturalism, while there is hardly any mention of racism, sexism or discrimination.Individualistic framing of diversity predominantly deals with the diagnoses of differ-ence, such as prejudice and stereotyping and may include many trivial differences (e.g.

pet ownership) (Embrick, 2011), instead of deeply rooted systemic inequality and dis-crimination at work (DiTomaso and Hooijberg, 1996).

We frame individualism versus collectivism as the second dilemma of workforcediversity leading to the tragedy of the uncommons. By focusing on individual employ-ees and defining difference as a matter of individual uniqueness, this dilemma reinforcesthe contradiction between the individual and collective good. Individualism serves to

obscure the collective dimension of inequality and discrimination. Accordingly, solu-tions based on this philosophy fail to address societal interests and to promote solutionsthat will effect change in allocation of resources across groups through a fairer redistri-

bution at both organizational and societal scales. As the unequal distribution of resourcesis overlaid on the categories of difference that were generated historically between


8/25

Jonsen et al. 277

various groups of people, there is a continual reinforcement of the association betweencompetence and worth with categorical distinctions (see Acker, 2006). Therefore, justappealing to employers to recognize the value of unique diversity of each individualemployee is not likely to change much in terms of how people get treated, rewarded, or

recognized in the workplace (Tatli and zbilgin, 2012). In other words, race- and sex-based wage disparities, job segregation, and the glass ceiling will not simply disappear.

Critical scholars argue that an individualized conception of diversity attempts todepoliticize gender and racial conflicts within organizations (Lorbiecki and Jack, 2000).Furthermore, the rise of the diversity management approach took place in a neoliberalcultural setting where social class differences have increasingly become legitimate andindividualist discourses have gained currency. The marginalization of social class inequality and diversity research and practice should be treated with caution because classis a key cross-cutting category, which is intertwined with all other forms of difference

(Acker, 2006; Zanoni, 2011). For example, while exploring the American ghetto and theFrench banlieue, Wacquant (2007) explains how poverty and class relations are racial-ized, creating a new form of marginality and fixed pockets of long-term unemploymentfor those excluded from secure wage work in the formal sector.

Defining difference as an individual rather than collective construct engenders blind-ness towards the historical and social dynamics that constructed the difference in thefirst place. Even the differences that seem to be more individually specific, such aslifestyle, taste, work style, functional or educational background are, often, a reflectionof individuals belonging to historically and socially constructed groups on the basis

of their gender, sexuality, ethnicity and social class identity. For example, womenschoices of certain female-dominated occupations, such as nursing or teaching, are con-strued by some to be more a function of constraint than of choice (Orenstein, 2002).Furthermore, individualization of difference leads to a paradox that difference is seenas innate to the person, which means that it becomes fixed and essentialized (Nkomo,1992). In the next section, taking into account the implications of dilemmas of volunta-rism versus coercion and individualism versus collectivism, we offer solutions to thetragedy of the uncommons.

Tackling the tragedy of the uncommonsThroughout the last four decades of social dilemma scholarship, we have been pre-sented with a range of solutions, typically divided into two general classes: individualand structural (see Messick and Brewer, 1983). We focus here mainly on structuralsolutions, because a common weakness in the two dilemmas we have reviewed is a lackof structural conditions for societal well-being. Simply focusing on the small wins(Weick, 1984) or headcount gains (e.g. Catalyst, 2007) provides only piecemeal, small-scale solutions (Martin and Meyerson, 2008: 552). In offering solutions, we do not

disregard these suggestions and recommendations. However, perhaps we have beenlooking too long at the symptoms. This has led to a primary concern for the why [diver-sity] and the how [to manage diversity], instead of asking the initial question of who.We contend that the solution needs to first and foremost address the question of withwhom does the solution lie?


9/25


The actors in the tragedy of the uncommons

In addressing the tragedy of the uncommons, there are multiple actors with varyingdegrees of power and influence. One of the key reasons behind the social tragedy of

workforce diversity and the two dilemmas associated with it (i.e. voluntarism and indi-vidualism) is the overemphasis on the voluntary involvement of organizations in manag-ing diversity without any need for enforcement from other actors or stakeholders. Socialgood and long-term vision may make business sense in avoiding social disorder andunderutilization of talent, but the expectation that individual businesses will voluntarilyact to curb their short-term competitiveness and profits may be unrealistic. This is thecase particularly because we live in an increasingly connected world, where competitiontakes place at a global scale, driven by (perceptions of) free market capitalism, whichdoes not necessarily impose any morals of social and community responsibility, but

primarily has a goal of profit maximization. In fact, Hardin (1968) specifically statesthat self-correcting market mechanisms (such as the business case for diversity) andsocial morality (such as the ethical case for diversity) are unrealistic solutions to thetragedy of commons in the absence of centrally enforced regulation. The solution to thetragedy of the uncommons requires an attention to the multiplicity of actors beyondindividual organizations because the tragedy of the uncommons takes place in a multi-actor environment characterized by differential access to power, voice and legitimacy(zbilgin and Tatli, 2011). In the following section, we identify the key actors (e.g.organizations, consumers, workers, the public at large and the state) and discuss theinterplay between them with a view to understand where solutions to the social tragedyof workforce diversity might lie.

Organization and its stakeholders Organizations are accountable to and rely on their stake-holders, the actors who are influenced by and/or may exert influence on the realizationof an organizations objectives (Freeman, 1984). In their attempt to integrate the instru-mental and normative versions of the stakeholder theory, Jones and Wicks (1999) explainwhy the moral organization is competitive, and state that convergence of moral andfinancial goals will take place if we as a society desire a moral and practical organiza-tional response to the spread of intensely competitive global markets (1999: 218). In the

absence of national and international legislation and institutional reinforcement, it isnaive to expect organizations to recognize their social and moral responsibilities auto-matically, and forego their short- and medium-term profits and competitive position inthe market for some future collective social good. Prioritizing the long-term collectiveinterest over and above the individual commercial interest of an organization also con-flicts with the winner-takes-all culture of contemporary industrial democracies (Frankand Cook, 1995).

We do not claim that corporate morality and good ethical behaviour cannot be associ-ated with instrumental benefits and integrated with economically driven activities (see

Jones, 1995; Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Wu, 2010). The problem becomes one of com-peting strategic choices for organizations when there is a vacuum of coercive regulation.Jensen (2000) argues that one cannot maximize more than one strategic dimension at thesame time. If firms value profit maximization as the primary objective and if there is a


10/25

Jonsen et al. 279

lack of sanctions for socially irresponsible corporate behaviour, including exclusion andinequality, the collective good is doomed to deteriorate. If we assume the worst-case butnot unrealistic scenario that many companies are greedy, selfish and short-termist, thesolutions to the tragedy of the uncommons need to address mechanisms through which

workforce diversity could appeal to selfish and short-termist interests of organizations(e.g. making diversity attractive and exclusion costly). We explained earlier that theclassical business case is not sufficient to achieve this as the evidence supporting the

business case is mixed. Furthermore, there is no strong evidence that indicates thatorganizations are widely convinced that there is a genuine business case for diversity

beyond its use at a rhetorical level (see Tatli, 2011). Therefore, a societal case based onthe role of multiple actors and the interplay between them is necessary.

Our assertion that solutions to the tragedy of workforce diversity require attention tothe role that might be played by different actors has parallels with Campbells (2007)

framing of corporate social responsibility (CSR). He argues that institutional mecha-nisms, social sanctions and pressure groups mediate the relationship between economicfactors and CSR, mitigating socially irresponsible corporate behaviour. However, draw-ing on more critical CSR literature (e.g. Donaldson, 1999; Gioia, 1999), we recognizethat all stakeholders do not enjoy similar levels of power and privilege. CSR as an areaitself suffers from similar tragedies due to the conflict between the individual interests offirms and collective social interest. We see partial utility in borrowing stakeholderapproach of the CSR literature, allowing us to link the tragedy of commons to workforcediversity with recognition of the multiplicity of the stakeholders, which originates from

mainstream CSR literature, and the asymmetries of power and influence between thesestakeholders, which is explored in critical CSR literature.The stakeholders of an organization, including the shareholders, consumers, employ-

ees and the general public, might be considered as important actors in finding solutionsto the tragedy of workforce diversity. However, stakeholders do not comprise a homog-enous entity with identical interests and levels of influence. Instead, they have divergentasymmetric interests and priorities, and it is unrealistic to assume that organizations areequally responsive to all stakeholder groups, particularly to the rather abstract stake-holder category of the general public. Interests of some stakeholders may take prece-

dence over those of others in terms of their effect on corporate decisions (Gioia, 1999).As Donaldson (1999: 240) put succinctly, [t]he corporation is, in an important sense, theshareowners property. The shareowner is more than a first among equals. Of course, itis ironic that the state (e.g. France, the UK, the USA) is indeed becoming a major share-owner of many large corporations from banks to automobile manufacturers. This newsituation could, potentially, accelerate a reprioritization of social responsibility. As state-controlled companies are making a comeback (The Economist, 2010: 51) the interven-tion-approach seems perhaps more timely and appropriate than ever.

In addition to shareholders, another key stakeholder group is consumers, who maypressure firms to take socially responsible action through active campaigning or positiveor negative purchasing decisions with a direct effect on profitability (Creyer and Ross,1997; Mackey et al., 2007; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). If the key imperative for theorganizations is profit and shareholder value maximization, as some scholars point to(e.g. Campbell, 2007), the accountability of the firms is first and foremost to their


11/25


customers and shareholders rather than to society at large. The makeup of these twogroups will strongly influence the decisions of a firm regarding diversity and equality. Amajority of shareholders and consumers with significant purchasing power in manyindustries are likely to be white and wealthy. Firms logically feel most accountable to

and responsible towards the privileged and dominant in society rather than the dispos-sessed and the disadvantaged, who lack economic capital in the form of monetaryresources and material assets and symbolic capital in the form of legitimacy, power andinfluence in affecting decision-making processes (see Bourdieu, 1986). This also speaksto the mirror-argument for diversity, namely that organizations are supposed to benefitfrom mirroring their customers in the composition of their own workforce. So, there is

perhaps a (partial) case for appealing to diverse segments of the society by prioritizingtheir concerns, but not necessarily for promoting equality and diversity. In other words,the promise of voluntarism based on a business case, which is inspired by deregulation

of labour markets, is self-defeating in gendered and racialized societies.

The state As social tragedies become more pressing, there is an increasing need for poli-cies that will either change the rules of the game or eliminate the dilemmas that lead totragedies. These policies need to be imposed by society, for which the state can be thoughtof as an approximation. The state, which is the legislator, regulator of the markets and

provider of public services, has an essential role to play in tackling the tragedy of work-force diversity. It is a truism to note that state regulation has been widely resisted by thecorporate world. However, one of the ironies unveiled during recent financial downturns

was that some businesses and institutions that were once passionate supporters of deregu-lation have now accused governments of not managing markets well enough (Mascian-daro et al., 2011; Sakoui, 2011). This irony encapsulates important lessons about thedilemmas of voluntarism (versus coercion) and individualism (and collectivism).

Pearce (2001a) and Ring et al. (2005) point out the lack of research interest in the roleof the state in shaping organizational and institutional fields. Pearce (2001b) argues thatnon-facilitative states, which do not enforce uniform and strong legislation, create a vac-uum of rules and values in markets and organizations. A weak central authority and lackof strongly enforced regulation then results in a situation in which individual firms

develop their own strategies to conduct their business. This brings us back to our use ofthe tragedy of the uncommons. Each organization acts as a herder seeking to maximizeits profit in the short term without preoccupying itself with the long-term consequencesof its actions for the society at large. This is the most predictable path for organizations,which compete with others for survival and profit. Only through an overseeing body ofsome kind, which has the social good as its raison dtre, can the collapse of the diverseworkforce, and its equal representation, be prevented. The state has an important role to

play, not only in enforcing legal and ethical cases for diversity through legislation andpolicy, but also in creating a credible business case with short- and long-term conse-quences for organizations through redistribution of economic and symbolic resources(see zbilgin and Tatli, 2011). Ironically, the state can make the business case cometrue. As Pearce (2001a: 87) notes, [g]overnments establish and enforce the rules underwhich organizations operate. They can make a course of organizational action profitableor illegal.


12/25

Jonsen et al. 281

As an example of the power of state interventions, diversity was kick-started in theUSA by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 (Bell, 2012;Ellickson, 2001), which made it a salient issue for employers, and subsequent legislationdrove much of the early interest in this field. According to Kalev et al.s (2006) analysis,

one of the most effective steps in terms of government action in the USA with regard toworkforce diversity policies was the introduction of executive orders regarding affirma-tive action. Similarly, zbilgin and Tatli (2008) examined the reasons for adopting diver-sity management approaches in British workplaces. They identified that coercion in theform of equality legislation was the strongest driver for an organizations decision to takeup diversity management activities. One of the cases demonstrating the significance oflegal measures has been the Norwegian quota system, which has radically transformedthe representation of women on company boards, whereas voluntary measures havefailed to deliver such outcomes earlier in Norway and internationally elsewhere (Seierstad

and Healy, 2012).Kerr (1992) recommended that structural solutions may combat social dilemmas. In

relation to equality and diversity at work, Dickens (2006: 305) notes that state interven-tions are critical to an equality agenda because markets tend to produce discrimination.We contend that state action is necessary in order for the disadvantaged to be empow-ered and the marginal brought into the mainstream through a redistribution of resourcesto minimize inequality in access to economic and symbolic capital. The most prominentexample of this is the relative success of welfare states in Northern Europe andScandinavia in eradicating inequities through mechanisms of income redistribution and

interventions. Therefore, the states role in providing solutions to the social tragedy ofworkforce diversity goes beyond the sanctioning of organizations and involves readjust-ing the distribution of common resources to promote equality of opportunity and ofoutcomes (Jewson and Mason, 1986). A redistribution of both economic and symbolicresources is equally important in overcoming the tragedy of the uncommons. The redis-tribution of economic resources by the state and promotion of fairer access to economiccapital involves social policies that go beyond employment and include areas such ashousing, health and education in a way to improve the life and employment chances ofdiverse segments of the population. The fairer distribution of symbolic resources, on the

other hand, means promotion of voice mechanisms and empowerment of less powerfulstakeholders in a way to strengthen their legitimacy and influence in affecting decisionmaking in communities, organizations and society at large.

But, why should governments take action? Given that governments are made up ofindividuals who are part of the political elite benefiting from the status quo that is

based on sustaining historical structures of privilege, is there any rationale for govern-ments to be more socially responsible and less self-interested compared with the

private organizations? The answer is yes, because through the mechanisms of repre-sentational democracy the political elite, unlike the economic elite, is accountable toand dependent upon the voting potential of disadvantaged and under-privileged groupsas well as the advantaged white, middle-class male in order to sustain its position.Indeed, the privileged in the society are socially and economically dominant but remaina numerical minority compared the disadvantaged population. So, the political eliterather than the corporate economic elite is more likely to see a case for self-interest for


13/25


promoting diversity, equality and inclusion in the society. Therefore, it is more reason-able to rely on the government to take proactive action for diversity and equality, vialegislation of market relations and redistribution of wealth to promote greater fairnessand justice, than to expect businesses to take voluntary radical action.

Some have argued that in a globalized world businesses are political actors and thatthey replace some government functions by assuming roles and responsibilities that go

beyond their legal obligations and also filling regulatory vacuums induced by liberaliza-tion and the decline of the nation state (e.g. Habermas, 2001; Margolis and Walsh, 2003;Matten and Crane, 2005; Scherer and Pallazo, 2011; Scherer et al., 2009). On the otherhand, the debate is not fully settled. As Banerjee argues, corporations cannot replacegovernments (Banerjee, 2008: 74) and Devinney (2009) points out that a sociallyresponsible organization is an oxymoron. Furthermore, it is questionable if the end ofthe nation state, presented by Ohmae (1990) and many others before and after him, is

continuing to ring true in all regions, or if this discourse is dissipating.In their analysis of the legitimacy of corporate political activity, Scherer et al. (2006)

speak about the democratic deficit of global corporate citizenship behavior (p. 519),which is a result of a gap between traditional mechanisms of national governance andemerging yet incomplete transnational mechanisms of governance. In this article wewould paraphrase this to mean the demographic deficit, referring to diversity deficit, ofglobal corporate citizens, insofar that the gap between corporate jobs and privileges, andthe demographic spread of the population, may only, realistically, be squared by votingrights and ultimately government initiatives. However, there remain certain conditions

under which the state and politics can facilitate change at societal level in a way to over-come the social tragedy of workforce diversity. Writing on the chronic limitations ofneoliberal capitalism, Knyght et al. (2011) recently urged for a shift to social capitalism,which integrates the non-market forces such as the state and civil society. The neoliberalmodel not only reduces the effectiveness of governmental social policies due to retrench-ment of the states influence and resources (Wacquant, 2008; Zuran, 1995), but may alsoundermine a truly functioning democracy because of the concentration of power in thehands of the few, widening gap between haves and have nots and the resulting citizendisenfranchisement (Lindblom, 1977; Putnam, 1993).

An example of the neoliberal models effects on promoting equality and diversity isthe retrenchment of the state in the USA, where many of the original conversations aboutdiversity began, but where effectiveness of legislation and government sanctions fordiscrimination have been curbed as a result of perceptions that minorities have done toowell and that discrimination and inequality are things of the past (Henry and Sears, 2002;Krysan and Faison, 2012). These (mis)perceptions exist despite ample evidence that inmany cases similarly qualified minorities are less likely to be hired and more likely to belaid off than whites, among other types of discrimination (e.g. Bertrand and Mullainathan,2004; Castilla, 2008; Elvira and Zatzick, 2002). Therefore, the success of the state inter-vention in solving the dilemmas of workforce diversity depends on state power andinfluence, and thus on the socio-economic model adopted (Tatli and zbilgin, 2009).Moving away from neoliberal approaches to state models which promote equality anddiversity for its residents and citizens is a condition to address the tragedy of commons.Only in such political economic order will the state have the power, influence and


14/25

Jonsen et al. 283

resources to mobilize for sanctioning discrimination and exclusion, and redistributingsymbolic and economic resources in more equitable ways.

Solutions to the tragedy of the uncommonsIn this section, we move towards a discussion of pragmatic solutions to the tragedy of theuncommons. We adopt Platts (1973) article about social traps as a lens through whichwe can see plausible solutions to the social tragedy of workforce diversity, and thus eas-ing the tension between the rationality of the individual firms and collective rationality.The core of Platts suggestions is based on short-term versus long-term focus (Dawes,1980), which perhaps exemplifies the major discrepancy between the way corporationslook at diversity and the way society has to look at it. As shown in Table 1, Platt providessix ways out of social traps: (1) change the delay needed to convert long-range conse-

quences into more immediate ones; (2) add counter-reinforcers, such as social incentivesor punishments; (3) change the nature of the long-range consequences; (4) add short-term positive reinforcement for competing behaviour; (5) get outside help in changingthe reinforcement patterns of locked-in loops; and, (6) set up superordinate authority to

prevent entrapments, to allocate resources, to mediate conflicts, and to redirect immedi-ate reinforcement patterns to more rewarding long-range goals. The fundamental premiseof these suggestions is an attempt to change situations within which individuals or groupsface the prospect of adopting seemingly beneficial behaviours that have negative conse-quences over time (Platt, 1973).

Solutions aim to mobilize motivational and structural mechanisms through three keystrategies. The first is to increase the salience of the potential trade-off and consequences

because decision makers vary in their understanding of these dynamics. Second, alteringthe time between behaviour and expected consequences is an important dimension ofsolving a social dilemma, because swift consequences in the form of sanctions or rewardsmotivate choices by actively helping the decision maker to see how actions are linked tooutcomes (Skinner, 1969; Vroom, 1964). Finally, introduction of mediators or institu-tional agents is necessary in order to prevent the dilemmas, and solve or influence thechoice between individual and collective interests (e.g. the conflict between short run

individual benefits of acting in self-interest and delayed [or absence of] punishment fordoing so). This can be a skilled third party or new superordinate authorities. In the rightcolumn of Table 1, we offer short- and long-term diversity actions, which correspond toPlatts six ways out. We recommend that regulation and state intervention, including newlegislation and funding, is implemented to support these diversity actions. In our sug-gested solutions, regulation and funding by the state are at the heart of ways out from thetragedy of workforce diversity in agreement with Hardins (1968) argument that solutionto the tragedy of commons lies in centralized enforcement, regulation and control.

First, we recommend a short deadline for evidence of results of any non-discrimina-

tion efforts, such as affirmative action in the USA or quotas for women on boards inNorway and Spain, with immediate and serious monetary consequences for non-compli-ance. Importantly, these initiatives should be wider than board level concerns. Second,we propose that a model of simultaneous positive and negative reinforcement needsto be available in a way to combine sanctions for non-compliance, and rewards


15/25


and recognition for good practice. Many tax systems already offer such incentives anddisincentives for environmental issues. For organizations to take the issue of workforcediversity seriously, the scope and nature of positive and negative consequences need to

be strengthened in order to overcome the conflict between individual and collectiveinterest. Third, as monetary punishment alone can easily lead to cost/benefit specula-tions, policies and initiatives of more institutional or structural character, which changethe nature of long-term consequences, can be investigated. For example, social policiesin areas such as housing, education and employment have a potential to redistributewealth and resources among diverse groups in a more equitable manner, thereby changingthe future labour and talent pool available to organizations and making diversity morelikely to provide a competitive advantage.

The fourth way out involves provision of short-term positive enforcements, particu-

larly by the state. Such reward mechanisms would be linked to progressive and proactivediversity initiatives, and provide incentives for being best-in-class. Diversity prizes andbenchmarks already exist in many countries such as the UK, the USA and France.However, symbolic rewards need to be linked to tangible outcomes such as tax breaks,or preferential treatment in regards to government contracts. Fifth, we recommend

Table 1 An application of Platts ways out of social traps to the tragedy of the uncommons

Platts ways out Diversity action

(1) Change the delay to convert long-

range consequences into moreimmediate ones

(1) Impose short deadlines for non-

discrimination efforts with immediate andserious monetary consequences

(2) Add counter-reinforcers, such associal incentives or punishments

(2) Include simultaneous positive and negativereinforcement combining punishment fornon-compliance and rewards for goodpractice and role-modeling

(3) Change the nature of the long-rangeconsequences

(3) Require long-term changes of institutionalor structural character

(4) Add short-term positivereinforcement for competing

behaviour

(4) Provide incentives for being best-in-class, such as prizes and tax breaks,

or preferential treatment in regards togovernment contracts

(5) Get outside help in changing thereinforcement patterns of locked-inloops

(5) Provide or finance knowledge transfer fromother countries or sectors, and facilitatetrickle down effects from large corporationsto small and medium businesses particularlythrough practices of procurement andbusiness-to-business interfaces

(6) Set up superordinate authority toprevent entrapments, to allocate

resources, to mediate conflicts,and to redirect immediatereinforcement patterns to morerewarding long-range goals

(6) Provide regulatory bodies with significantresources and certain authority for

interventions


16/25

Jonsen et al. 285

provision and financing of knowledge transfer from more advanced countries or sectors,and facilitation of trickle down effects from large corporations to small and medium

businesses, particularly through practices of procurement and business-to-business inter-faces. Large firms, because of more government scrutiny and formalized human resources

activities are more likely to have less discriminatory hiring mechanisms, such as struc-tured interviews (e.g. McCarthy et al., 2010). The state would have a crucial role in

planning, foreseeing and competitively funding knowledge transfer activities throughwhich conventional practices could be altered by introducing new progressive approaches.Sixth, we recommend that regulatory equality and diversity bodies be funded by the stateand provided with significant resources and certain authority for interventions in thecases of malpractice. Such regulatory bodies need to remain independent and representthe voices of the multiple stakeholders including employees and employers but also localcommunities, pressure groups and NGOs. This final suggestion also offers a safeguard

against malpractice by not only organizations but also governmental bodies respondingto the crucial question of who shall watch the watchers themselves? (Hardin, 1968:12451246).

So what can organizations do? State enforcement can encourage organizations toconsider their responsibility and to comply with regulations and sanctions. However,there is need for organizations to take actions to implement diversity policies on theground in line with their circumstances. First, organizations are required to prepare fora progressive shift, by creating environments based on psychological safety and wellbe-ing (Edmondson, 1999) and inclusion (Roberson, 2006). Such preparation is necessary

to help welcome the diversity within the workforce, and it necessitates a wider culturechange as well as more targeted initiatives such as providing information and training toraise awareness. Second, organizations need to tailor strategies and policies in order toimplement centrally enforced rules and regulations in accordance with their own spe-cific circumstances and needs. Organizational differences may render one best way or

blueprint approaches too unrefined for the purposes of all organizations. There is also avariation in diversity challenges in the potential and actual labour pool of organizationsin different sectors and of different sizes, which necessitates specifically tailoredapproaches to management of diversity. Therefore, it may also be of relevance for

organizations or industries to lobby governments (in a positive sense) instead of organ-izing progress themselves (Hardin, 1982).

Concluding remarks

The United Nations suggests a triple bottom line for companies, corresponding to thetriple P: profits, people and planet (Elkington, 1998). The roles of organizations andcountries have become intertwined in many aspects (Pfeffer, 2010). But whose respon-sibility is workforce diversity? As in classic social dilemmas (e.g. Dawes and Messick,

2000), we cannot rely on the individual or the organization to adhere to the public con-cern of diversity. Furthermore, there is a considerable risk of diffusion of responsibility(Latan, 1981). Solutions must primarily come from those who have authority andinfluence over businesses and the business environment, and this may take a collectiveapproach including many stakeholders, as suggested by Blockson (2003). According to


17/25


Ellicksons (2001) analysis of what can trigger norms to change, the state may providean exogenous shock that can alter the composition of groups. We argue that societyshould ensure that equality and diversity at work is pursued holistically and acrosslevels. For organizations, the existence of a business case for diversity is dubious. Legal

and ethical cases are often viewed as irrelevant in the increasingly deregulated andpolarized society of the neoliberal era.

We highlight an urgent need to focus our diversity discussions on a new approachbased on diversity as a collective good, which includes structural issues that must bedealt with at a societal level by a central authority such as the state. In this respect, weacknowledge a significant variation among societies with different business environ-ments, and with different historical, economic, political social and technological con-texts. For example, the immigrants in North Europe and Scandinavia have a differentstatus than immigrants in the USA or the UK and the integration mechanisms vary (e.g.

Berry and Bell, 2012; Forsander, 2004). Although workforce diversity has been exten-sively discussed in some academic and practitioner circles, this focus has resulted in toolittle progress. Organizations are slowly becoming more diverse due to talent shortagesand increased diversity in education in advanced economies, but women, ethnic minori-ties and people with disabilities continue to be over represented in lower paid and lesssecure jobs (zbilgin and Vassilopoulou, 2010). An integral worldview, as suggested byTaylor and Taylor (2007), and multidimensional thinking, as suggested by Jonsen et al.(2010) and Martin and Meyerson (2008), may spark transformation rather than collapseof the commons.

We suggest that the state as a regulator and as an agent of the redistribution of sym-bolic and economic resources needs to be reintroduced in conceptualizations of work-place diversity and equality. Through legal and welfare interventions, the state mayensure that a long-term perspective on diversity and equality is taken. However, stateaction alone is not sufficient. The influence of other external agents such as pressuregroups, employees, consumers and society at large is crucial. This means that suchexternal actors need to counterbalance corporate power and influence corporate deci-sions. Thus, individual and institutional actors such as employees, consumers and the

public at large, who subscribe to a common human rights agenda, have a role to play in

shaping the diversity and equality agenda of the state and organizations. On the onehand, they may exert influence over the political elite through democratic processes ofelection to enact their managerial and redistributory authority so as to reduce inequali-ties. On the other hand, they may enforce organizations to be more inclusive, diverseand fair by mobilizing their economic capital as consumers, symbolic capital as employ-ees and as members of pressure groups.

Corporations are at the receiving end of the actions of the state and other stakehold-ers. In order to survive, organizations will need to respond both to state initiatives andlegislative sanctions (see Yamagishi,1986), and to the ethical and fairness concerns ofconsumers, employees and individuals in the society. Researchers and business leadersmay have overlooked the dynamics of indirect reciprocity (Alexander, 1979, 1987,cited in Nowak and Sigmund, 1998) through which an organization may not expect adirect return from the recipient but from someone else for example, societal institu-tions. The indirect reciprocity could also be in the form of reputational gains, as


18/25

Jonsen et al. 287

organizations compete for scarce reputational benefits (Barclay, 2004), which havebeen claimed to potentially solve the tragedy of the commons (Milinski et al., 2002). Inrecent years, indirect reciprocity through reputational gains has become one of thelegitimate drivers through which organizations pursue a diversity agenda (zbilgin and

Tatli, 2008).In our framework, there is a circular relationship of reinforcement between the

multiple stakeholders. Therefore, addressing any one of the levels requires action alsoin other levels for social change in terms of equality and diversity to be substantial andsustainable. However, the state is the first and foremost stakeholder, which can changethe dominant organization of life and by doing so overcome the tragedy of the uncom-mons. Our approach requires a turn in framing of workforce diversity as a societalrather than a strategic choice.

FundingThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, ornot-for-profit sectors.

References

Acker J (2006) Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society20(4): 441464.

Agocs C and Burr C (1996) Employment equity, affirmative action and managing diversity:Assessing the differences.International Journal of Manpower17(4/5): 3045.

Banerjee SB (2008) Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. CriticalSociology 34(1): 5179.

Barclay P (2004) Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the tragedy of thecommons.Evolution and Human Behavior25(4): 209220.

Barry B and Bateman TS (1996) A social trap analysis of the management of diversity.Academyof Management Review 21(3): 757790.

Bell MP (2012) Diversity in Organizations, 2nd edn. Mason, OH: South-Western CengageLearning.

Bertrand M and Mullainathan S (2004) Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha andJamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination.American Economic Review 94(4):

9911011.Berry DP and Bell MP (2012) Expatriates: Gender, race and class distinctions in internationalmanagement. Gender, Work & Organization 19(1): 1028.

Biel A, Eek D, Grling T and Gustafsson M (eds) (2008)New Issues and Paradigms in Researchand Social Dilemmas. New York: Springer.

Blockson LC (2003) Multisector approaches to societal issues management.Business and Society42(3): 381390.

Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG (ed.)Handbook of Theory and Researchfor the Sociology of Education. New York/London: Greenwood, 241258.

Campbell JL (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional

theory of corporate social responsibility.Academy of Management Review 32(3): 946967.Castilla EJ (2008) Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. American Journal ofSociology 113(6): 14791526.

Catalyst (2007) The Bottom Line: Corporate Performance and Womens Representation onBoards. New York: Catalyst Inc.


19/25


Chrobot-Mason D, Ruderman MN, Weber TJ and Ernst C (2009) The challenge of leading onunstable ground: Triggers that activate social identity faultlines. Human Relations 62(11):17631794.

Cox TH (1991) The multicultural organization.Academy of Management Executive 5(2): 3447.

Creyer EH and Ross WT (1997) The influence of firm behaviour on purchase intention: Do consum-ers really care about business ethics?Journal of Consumer Marketing14(6): 421432.Crozier (1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Dawes RM (1980) Social dilemmas.Annual Review of Psychology 31(1): 169193.Dawes RM and Messick DM (2000) Social dilemmas.International Journal of Psychology 35(2):

111116.De Cremer D and Van Dijk E (2002) Perceived criticality and contributions in public good

dilemmas: A matter of feeling responsible to all? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations5(4): 319332.

De Cremer D, Van Knippenberg D, Van Dijk E and Van Leeuwen E (2008) Coorporating if ones

goal are collective-based.Journal of Applied Psychology 38(6): 15621579.Demuijnck G (2009) Non-discrimination in human resources management as a moral obligation.Journal of Business Ethics 88(1): 83101.

Devinney TM (2009) Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and theugly of corporate social responsibility.Academy of Management Perspectives 23(2): 4456.

Dickens L (1997) Gender, race and employment equality in Britain: Inadequate strategies and therole of industrial relations actors.Industrial Relations Journal28(4): 282291.

Dickens L (2006) Re-regulation for gender equality: From either/or to both.Industrial RelationsJournal37(4): 299309.

DiTomaso N and Hooijberg R (1996) Diversity and the demands of leadership. Leadership

Quarterly 7(2): 163187.DiTomaso N, Post C and Parks-Yancy R (2007) Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status,and numbers. The Annual Review of Sociology 33: 473501.

Dobbs MF (1996) Managing diversity: Lessons from the private sector.Public Personnel Manage-ment25(3): 351367.

Donaldson T (1999) Making stakeholder theory whole. Academy of Management Review 24(2):237241.

Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. AdministrativeScience Quarterly 44(2): 350383.

Elkington J (1998) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Stony

Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.Ellickson RC (2001) The evolution of social norms: A perspective from the legal academy. In:Hechter M and Opp K-D (eds) Social Norms. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 3575.

Elvira MM and Zatzick CD (2002) Whos displaced first? The role of race in layoff decisions.Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 41(2): 329361.

Embrick DG (2011) The diversity ideology in the business world: A new oppression for a newage. Critical Sociology 37(5): 541556.

Forsander A (2004) Labour market integration in the Nordic welfare state. Does work make youinto a real Finn? Working paper presented at the 13th Nordic Migration Conference, Aalborg,1820 November 2004. CEREN, University of Helsinki. Available at: http://www.amid.dk/

ocs/viewpaper.php?id=140&cf=1 (accessed 23 August 2011).Frank R and Cook PJ (1995) The Winner-Take-All Society: Why the Few at the Top Get So MuchMore Than the Rest of Us. New York: Penguin.

Freeman RE (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pittman.


20/25

Jonsen et al. 289

French PA (1996) Integrity, intentions and corporations. American Business Law Journal34(2):141155.

Gioia DA (1999) Practicability, paradigms and problems in stakeholder theorizing. Academy ofManagement Review 24(2): 228232.

Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ and Krause T (1995) Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review 20(4):874907.

Glenn ND (2007) Marriage and modernity. In: Loveless AS and Holman TB (eds) The Family inthe New Millennium, Vol. 2. Westport, CT: Praeger, 8185.

Greene AM and Kirton G (2009)Diversity Management in the UK: Organizational and StakeholderExperiences. London: Routledge.

Habermas J (2001) The Postnational Constellation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859): 12431248.Hardin R (1982) Collective Action. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Healy G, Kirton G, zbilgin M and Oikelome F (2010) Competing rationalities in the diver-sity project of the UK judiciary: The politics of assessment centres. Human Relations 63(6):807834.

Henry P and Sears D (2002) The symbolic racism 2000 scale.Political Psychology 23(2): 253283.Janssens M and Zanoni P (2005) Many diversities for many services: Theorizing diversity

(management) in service companies.Human Relations 58(3): 311340.Jayne MEA and Dipboye RL (2004) Leveraging diversity to improve business performance:

Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management43(4): 409424.

Jensen M (2000) Value maximization and the corporate executive function. In: Beer M and Nohria

N (eds)Breaking the Code of Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Jewson N and Mason D (1986) The theory and practice of equal opportunities policies: Liberal andradical approaches. Sociological Review 34(2): 307334.

Jones TM (1995) Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics.Academyof Management Review 20(2): 404437.

Jones TM and Wicks AC (1999) Convergent stakeholder theory.Academy of Management Review24(2): 206221.

Jonsen K, et al. (17 authors) (2010) Scientific mindfulness: A foundation for future themes in inter-national business. In: Devinney T, Pedersen T and Tihanyi L (eds) Advances in International

Management: The Past, Present and Future of International Business and Management, Vol.

23. New York: Emerald , 4369.Jonsen K, Maznevski ML and Schneider SC (2011a) Diversity and its not so diverse literature: Aninternational perspective.International Journal of Cross Cultural Management10(1): 3562.

Jonsen K, Schneider SC and Maznevski ML (2011b) Diversity A strategic issue? In: Grschl S(ed.)Diversity in the Workplace: Multi-disciplinary and International Perspectives. London:Gower.

Joshi A and Roh H (2008) Considering context in team diversity research: A meta-analytic review.Academy of Management Proceedings (Suppl. 1): 16.

Kalev A, Dobbin F and Kelly E (2006) Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacyof corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review 71(4):

589617.Kelly E and Dobbin F (1998) How affirmative action became diversity management: Employerresponse to anti-discrimination law, 1961 to 1996. American Behavioural Scientist 41(7):960984.


21/25


Kerr NL (1992) Norms in social dilemmas. In: Schroeder D (ed.) Social Dilemmas: PsychologicalPerspectives. New York: Praeger.

Kersten A (2000) Diversity management, dialogue, dialects and diversion. Journal of Organisa-tional Change Management13: 235248.

Kirton G and Greene 2009 The costs and opportunities of doing diversity work in mainstreamorganisations.Human Resource Management Journal19(2): 159175.Knyght PR, Kakabadse NK, Kouzmin A and Kakabadse A (2011) Chronic limitations of neo-

liberal capitalism and oligopolistic markets: An urgent case for socialized capital. Societyand Business Review 6(1): 726.

Kollock P (1998) Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology24(1): 183214.

Krysan M and Faison N (2012) Racial attitudes in America: A brief summary of the updated data.Institute of Government Public Affairs, University of Illinois. Available at: http://igpa.uil-linois.edu/programs/racial-attitudes/brief (accessed 11 August 2012).

Korten D (1995) When Corporations Rule the World. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.Kumar R, Lamb WB and Wokutch R (2002) The end of South African sanctions, institutionalownership, and the stock price performance of boycotted firms: Evidence on the impact ofsocial/ethical investing.Business & Society 41(2): 133165.

Lamb WB, Kumar R and Wokutch RE (2005) Corporate social performance and the road toredemption: Insights from the South Africa sanctions. Organizational Analysis 13(1): 114.

Latan B (1981) The psychology of social impact.American Psychologist36(4): 343356.Lindblom C (1977) Politics and Markets: The Worlds Political Economic Systems. New York:

Basic Books.Litvin D (2002) The business case for diversity and the iron cage. In: Czarniawska B and Hopfl H

(eds) Casting the Other: The Production and Maintenance of Inequalities in Work Organiza-tions. London: Routledge.Litvin D (2006) Diversity: Making space for a better case. In: Konrad A, Prasad P and Pringle J

(eds)Handbook of Workplace Diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 7594.Lorbiecki A and Jack G (2000) Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management. British

Journal of Management11(3): 1731.Maak T and Pless N (2009) Business leaders as citizens of the world. Advancing humanism on a

global scale.Journal of Business Ethics 88(3): 537550.Mackey A, Mackey TB and Barney JB (2007) Corporate social responsibility and firm perfor-

mance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies.Academy of Management Review 32(3):

817835.Mannix E and Neale MA (2005) What differences make a difference? Psychological Science inthe Public Interest6(2): 3155.

Margolis JD and Walsh JP (2003) Misery loves companies rethinking social initiatives by busi-ness.Administrative Science Quarterly 48(2): 268305.

Martin J and Meyerson D (2008) Gender inequity and the need to study change. In: Barry D andHansen H (eds) New Approaches in Management and Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE, 552553.

Masciandaro D, Pansini RV and Quintyn M (2011) The economic crisis: Did financial supervisionmatter? IMF Working Paper WP/11/261. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/

wp/2011/wp11261.pdf (accessed 2 May 2012).Matten D and Crane A (2005) Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptual-ization.Academy of Management Review 30(1): 166179.

Matten D, Crane A and Chapple W (2003) Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporatecitizenship.Journal of Business Ethics 45(12): 10920.


22/25

Jonsen et al. 291

McCarthy JM, Van Iddekinge CH and Campion MA (2010) Are highly structured job interviewsresistant to demographic similarity effects?Personnel Psychology 63(2): 325359.

Messick DM and Brewer MB (1983) Solving social dilemmas? In: Wheeler L and Shaver P(eds) Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 4. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE,

1144.Milinski M, Semmann D and Krambeck H-J (2002) Reputation helps solve the tragedy of thecommons.Nature 415(6870): 424426.

Nkomo S (1992) The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting race in organizations. Academy ofManagement Review 17(3): 487513.

Noon M (2007) The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for ethnic minorities. Work,Employment and Society 21(4): 773783.

Nowak M and Sigmund K (1998) The dynamics of indirect responsibility.Journal of TheoreticalBiology 194(4): 561574.

Ohmae K (1990) The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. New York:

Harper Business.OLeary BJ and Weathington BL (2006) Beyond the business case for diversity in organizations.Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal18(4): 110.

Orenstein P (2002) Shortchanging girls: Gender socialization in schools. In: Dubeck P andDunn D (eds) Workplace, Womens Place: An Anthology, 2nd edn. Los Angeles, CA: RoxburyPublishers, 3846.

zbilgin M and Tatli A (2008) Global Diversity Management: An Evidence Based Approach.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

zbilgin M and Tatli A (2011) Mapping out the field of equality and diversity: Rise of individualismand voluntarism.Human Relations 64(9): 12291258.

zbilgin MF and Vassilopoulou J (2010) Global talent management: The case of high growthpotential economies.Report to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD),London.

Pearce JL (2001a) Less epistemology; more government and social status.Human Relations 54(1):8589.

Pearce JL (2001b) Organization and Management in the Embrace of Government. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pfeffer J (2010) Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of ManagementPerspectives 24(1): 3445.

Pies I, Hielscher S and Beckham M (2009) Moral commitments and the societal role of business:

An ordonomic approach to corporate citizenship.Business Ethics Quarterly 3(3): 375401.Platt J (1973) Social traps.American Psychologist28(8): 641651.Porter M and Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, January

February: 6277.Putnam RD (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.Richard O (2000) Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based

view.Academy of Management Journal43(2): 164177.Ring PS, Bigley GA, DAunno T and Khanna T (2005) Perspectives on how governments matter.

Academy of Management Review 30(2): 308320.

Roberson Q (2006) Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Groupand Organization Management31(2): 212236.Sakoui A (2011) Sovereigns turn to pre-crisis financial wizardry.Financial Times. Available at: http://

www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/53b445a0404511e0914000144feabdc0.html#axzz1u6udGDXP(accessed 2 May 2012).


23/25


Scherer AG and Palazzo G (2011) The new political role of business in a globalized world: Areview of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democ-racy.Journal of Management Studies 48(4): 899931.

Scherer AG, Palazzo G and Baumann D (2006) Global rules and private actors. Towards a new

role of the TNC in global governance.Business Ethics Quarterly 16(4): 502532.Scherer AG, Palazzo G and Matten D (2009) Introduction to the special issue: Globalization as achallenge for business responsibilities.Business Ethics Quarterly 19(3): 327347.

Schneider SK and Northcraft GB (1999) Three social dilemmas of workforce diversity inorganizations: A social identity perspective.Human Relations 52(11): 14451467.

Seierstad C and Healy G (2012) Womens equality in the Scandinavian academy a distant dream?Work, Employment and Society 26(2): 296313.

Sen S and Bhattacharya CB (2001) Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumerreactions to corporate social responsibility.Journal of Marketing38(2): 225243.

Skinner BF (1969) Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Appleton.

Stahl G, Maznevski ML, Voigt A and Jonsen K (2010) Unravelling the diversity-performance linkin multicultural teams: Meta-analysis of studies on the impact of cultural diversity in teams.Journal of International Business Studies 41(4): 690709.

Tatli A (2011) A multi-layered exploration of the diversity management field: Diversity dis-courses, practices and practitioners in the UK.British Journal of Management22(2): 238253.

Tatli A and zbilgin M (2009) Understanding diversity managers role in organizational change:Towards a conceptual framework. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 26: 244258.

Tatli A and zbilgin M (2012) An emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at work: ABourdieuan framing.International Journal of Management Reviews 13(2): 177198.

Taylor DM and Taylor GM (2007) The collapse and transformation of our world. Journal of

Futures Studies 11(3): 2946.The Economist (2010) Schumpeter. The eclipse of the public company, 21 August, p. 51.Tullock G (1974) The Social Dilemma: The Economics of War and Revolution. Blacksburg, VA:

University Publications Center for Study of Public Choice.Van Dijk E and De Cremer D (2006) Tacit coordination and social dilemmas: On the importance

of self-interest and fairness. In: De Cremer D, Zeelenberg M and Murnighan JK (eds) SocialPsychology and Economics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 141154.

Van Dijk E, Kwaadsteniet EW and De Cremer D (2009) Tacit coordination in social dilemmas:The importance of having a common understanding.Journal of Personality & Social Psychol-ogy 96(3): 665678.

Vroom VH (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.Wacquant L (2007) Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. Thesis Eleven91: 6677.

Wacquant L (2008) Ordering insecurity: Social polarization and the punitive upsurge. RadicalPhilosophy Review 11(1): 927.

Wade-Benzoni K, Tenbrunsel A and Bazerman M (1996) Egocentric interpretations of fairness inasymmetric, environmental social dilemmas: Explaining harvesting behavior and the role ofcommunication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67(2): 111126.

Watson W, Kumar K and Michaelson LK (1993) Cultural diversitys impact on interaction processand performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups.Academy of Management

Journal36(3): 590602.Weick KE (1984) Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist39(1): 4049.

Wettstein F (2009) Beyond voluntariness, beyond CSR: Making a case for human rights and justice.Business and Society Review 114(1): 125152.


24/25

Jonsen et al. 293

Whitehead AN (1948)Essays in Science and Philosophy. London: Ridler & Co.Wrench J (2005) Diversity management can be bad for you.Race & Class 46(3): 7384.Wu J (2010) The impact of corporate supplier programs on corporate purchasers intention to purchase

from women-owned enterprises.Business & Society 49(2): 359380.

Yamagishi T (1986) The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good.Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology 51(1): 110116.

Young B (2000) Disciplinary neoliberalism in the European Union and gender politics.New Polit-ical Economy 5(1): 7799.

Zanoni P (2011) Diversity in the lean automobile factory: Doing class through gender, disabilityand age. Organization 18(1): 105127.

Zuran M (1995) The challenge of globalization and individualization: A view from Europe. In:Holm HH and Sorensen G (eds) Whose World Order? Uneven Globalization and the End ofthe Cold War. Boulder, CO: Westview, 173264.

Karsten Jonsen is a research fellow in Organizational Behaviour at IMD, Switzerland and a visit-ing professor at several European universities. He earned his MSc in Economics from CBS inCopenhagen, MBA from ESCP-EAP in Paris, France and a PhD from the University of Geneva,Switzerland. His research interests and publications cover a variety of issues in cross-cultural busi-ness including generation Y/Z, work-family balance, team performance, virtual teams, leadership,stereotyping, cosmopolitanism, research methodology, career mobility, and gender and diversity.Dr Jonsen has served as advisor to large corporations in the field of workforce diversity and he isthe co-winner of the Carolyn Dexter Award for best international research paper at the Academyof Management 2010. He has published a variety of book chapters and articles in Journal of

International Business (JIBS), International Journal of Human Resource Management,

International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, British Journal of Management, and otherfine journals. [Email: [email protected]]

Ahu Tatli is a senior lecturer in the School of Business and Management at Queen Mary Universityof London, UK. The focus of her research is equality and diversity at work. Her empirical researchexplores power and strategies of the key equality actors, intersectionality of disadvantage andprivilege in organizational settings, diversity management, agency and change in organizations,and inequality and discrimination in recruitment and employment. She has widely published inedited collections, practitioner and policy outlets and international peer-reviewed journals suchas Academy of Management Review, British Journal of Management, Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Entrepreneurship and Regional

Development, International Business Review, Human Relations and International Journal ofManagement Reviews. [Email: [email protected]]

Mustafa F zbilgin is Professor of Organizational Behaviour at Brunel Business School, Londonand Co-Chaire Management et Diversit at Universit Paris Dauphine, France. His researchfocuses on equality, diversity and inclusion at work from comparative and relational perspectives.He is the editor-in-chief ofBritish Journal of Management. He has conducted field studies in theUK and internationally and his work is empirically grounded. His book Global Diversity

Management(co-authored with Ahu Tatli, Palgrave) provides evidence from international fieldstudies. He has authored and edited 10 books and published large number of papers in journals

such as Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Learning and Education,British Journal of Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior, International Journal of Human

Resource Management, Human Relations, Gender Work and Organization, and Social Science andMedicine, among others. [Email: [email protected]]


25/25


Myrtle P Bell is Professor of Management at the University of Texas at Arlington, USA. Herresearch, focusing on diversity, social issues, and human resources appears in outlets such as

Academy of Management Journal, Learning & Education, and Perspectives, Journal of Managerial

Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Human Resource Management Review, International

Journal of Selection and Assessment, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Human Resource Management, Gender, Work a

Documents

Tragedy of Uncommon.human Relations 2013 Jonsen 271 94