Organizational Culture and Strategic Performance

Cultural Diversity in Business: A Critical Reflection on the Ideology of Tolerance

J. Félix Lozano1 • Teresa Escrich2

Received: 12 January 2015 / Accepted: 6 March 2016 / Published online: 16 March 2016

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract Cultural diversity is an increasingly important

phenomenon that affects not only social and political har-

mony but also the cohesion and efficiency of organisations.

The problems that firms have with regard to managing

cultural diversity have been abundantly studied in recent

decades from the perspectives of management theory and

moral philosophy, but there are still open questions that

require deeper reflection and broader empirical analysis.

Managing cultural diversity in organisations is of prime

importance because it involves harmonising different val-

ues, beliefs, credos and customs, and, in essence, human

identity. Taking into consideration these cultural differ-

ences and harmonising them is a human rights issue

(UNDP, Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world, 2004)

and a central dimension of corporate social responsibility.

Here we are going to focus on theoretical reflection about

the ideas that lie behind corporate policies and organisa-

tional initiatives that deal with cultural diversity. The aim

of our paper is twofold: to present a critical reflection on

the ideology of tolerance, and propose an ideology of

respect for dealing with cultural diversity. We start by

presenting the plurality of interpretations of the concept of

ideology, and justify its applicability to the field of cultural

diversity. We then reflect on the differences between

‘‘tolerance’’ and ‘‘respect’’ and identifying the practical

implications for managing cultural diversity. And finally,

we propose a culture of respect that goes beyond tolerance

and complements and legitimizes the ‘‘business case’’

perspective for managing cultural diversity in companies.

The ideology of respect is based on the Kantian tradition

and on the discursive approach where rational dialogue and

argumentation are considered the legitimate process for

creating a culture of intercultural respect. From this theo-

retical discussion of the key philosophical concepts we can

suggest some general principles for managing cultural

diversity in organisations.

Keywords Cultural diversity � Respect � Tolerance � Discursive ethics � Critical ideologies � Interculturalism

Introduction

The discussion about relativism and universalism has been

a long-standing tradition in modern moral philosophy

(Habermas 2005; Forst 2003; Rawls 2002; Cortina 1997)

and management theory (Steinmann and Scherer 1998;

Bartlett and Ghoshal 1998; Hofstede et al. 2010). Today,

demographic movements influence the multicultural com-

position of countries and organisations (Eurostat 2015;

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,

OECD 2015), and conflict in society and in the work

environment may arise if diversity is not managed cor-

rectly. Neither the pragmatic response, consisting of the

imposition of universal values and standards through eth-

ical codes or international recommendations (Moon and

Woollians 2000), nor the factual relativist response of

adapting to different contexts has been effective. Deeper

& J. Félix Lozano [email protected]

Teresa Escrich

[email protected]

1 Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento,

INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Dpto. de Proyectos de Ingenierı́a-

ETSII (Edificio J), Universidad Politécnica de Valencia,

Camino de Vera S/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain

2 Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento,

INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Camino de Vera S/N Edif.

8E Acc J., 46022 Valencia, Spain

123

J Bus Ethics (2017) 142:679–696

DOI 10.1007/s10551-016-3113-y

reflection is needed on the philosophical and ideological

bases of the phenomenon of cultural diversity and its

management.

In recent decades, cultural diversity and its associated

challenges have become increasingly important due to two

fundamental changes in the phenomenon. First, increased

population mobility and migration processes, whether

forced or voluntary, have led to greater exposure to

diversity and to increased contact with people from dif-

ferent cultures. According to the OECD report ‘‘Interna-

tional Migration Outlook 2014’’ (2014), there are 115

million migrant workers, representing more than 10 % of

the working population, and this number is likely to

increase in the coming years. This phenomenon is

becoming increasingly relevant in Europe, which received

3.4 million immigrants in 2014 alone (Eurostat 2015), and

the tendency is increasing due to the conflict in Syria,

Afghanistan and Iraq (Statista 2015). Today, it is possible

to coexist alongside people who have different traditions,

beliefs and languages without leaving one’s community of

origin. Moreover, diversity in most societies has increased

due, in part, to changes in values and the individualisation

of lifestyles (Franken 2015). This growing interaction and

the increased valuation of individual freedom have led to

complex multiple identities (e.g. black–Protestant–ecolo-

gist–homosexual–German, Sen 2006). Identity is, there-

fore, a relational fluid construct (Hofmann 2012) that

requires an intersectional approach (Krell 2011).

In some countries that have a tradition of diversity, such

as the UK, there is a rising ‘‘fear of the other’’ (Searchlight

Educational Trust 2011); however, at the same time, cul-

tural diversity has undoubtedly influenced organisational

competitiveness and performance (Das Neves and Melé

2013). The idea that cultural diversity and the employment

of ethnic minorities could be profitable for companies has

been studied for many years (Cox 1991; Thomas and Ely

1996; European Commission 2013; Ortlieb et al. 2014).

Ortlieb and Sieben (2013) present a critical classification

and analysis of several models and make a fruitful proposal

based on a coherent theoretical rationale to explain why

some companies employ ethnic minorities. Their proposal

recognises the importance of legitimacy and moral argu-

ments, but it does not address the issue of why companies

should manage cultural diversity.

From our point of view, and in accordance with Melé

and Sánchez (2013), managing cultural diversity in

organisations is an ethical challenge and legal imperative

(rechtliche Gebote) (Krell and Sieben 2011, p. 166, ss.)

that requires a normative foundation (Steinmann and

Scherer 1998; Ulrich and Fluri 1992). It is important for

business students and managers to learn about other cul-

tures and traditions, and above all, it is essential for them to

reflect on the best ways to deal with this diversity in the

interest of not only efficiency but also of justice and

respect.

The aim of our article is to present a theoretical dis-

cussion of the key philosophical concepts for managing

cultural diversity in organisations. We distinguish between

‘‘tolerance’’ and ‘‘respect’’ as two broad perspectives, with

different practical implications, in order to respond to the

challenge of managing cultural diversity in organisations.

From our point of view, ‘‘respect’’ is a well-founded con-

cept for dealing with cultural diversity by integrating the

business case with the ethical perspective, thereby making

a positive contribution to corporate profits and creating a

fairer society.

Our theoretical contribution begins by acknowledging

the need to overcome the limitations of the perspective of

tolerance. The concept of tolerance has a long tradition and

many different meanings, with some assumptions (power

asymmetry, normative neutrality, etc.) that limit its ability

to respond effectively to the challenges of current cultural

diversity and that do not respond to the ethical require-

ments of a society with post-conventional consciousness

level (Habermas 1983). We begin by reflecting on the

ideologies and their impact on social harmony and the

practical life of organisations. We go on to offer a brief and

essential review of the concept of tolerance, highlighting

its historical evolution, interpretations and theoretical and

practical limitations. In the third section, we present the

concept of respect, emphasising its potentialities from the

perspective of discursive ethics (Habermas 1991) and the

intercultural sociological approach (Cantle 2012). After a

detailed theoretical justification of the concept, we present

what we believe to be the practical implications of the

respectful approach for the management of organisations.

We conclude by proposing initiatives for managing cultural

diversity based on the concept of respect.

The idea underpinning our proposal is that the respon-

sible, effective management of cultural diversity in

organisations requires rigorous dialogue and a willingness

to understand and learn from the other (Ortlieb and Sieben

2013). A culture of debate is only possible if the other is

acknowledged as an interlocutor of equal value: ‘‘[Partic-

ipants in a discourse] must acknowledge each other as

participants in a discourse in which both parties as a matter

of principle can learn from each other’’ (Steinmann and

Scherer 1998, p. 66).

Our reflection on the ideology of respect has some

implications for the development of corporate social

responsibility (CSR) in terms of theory and practice. 1 ‘‘The

1 According to ‘‘Diversity Management in Deutschland: Benchmark

2014. Strategie oder Alibi?’’, the majority of the DAX 30 company

directors said that the objective of diversity management is to ‘‘satisfy

ethical demands’’ and, consequently, the company’s CSR (Köpple

2014, p. 9).

680 J. F. Lozano, T. Escrich

123

ideas put forward by economists and political philosophers

powerfully affect social behaviour and the actual conduct

of human affairs’’ (Fonseca 1991, p. II). In particular, ideas

and ideologies on cultures, societies and humankind

influence the ways in which cultural diversity is managed.

In the theoretical–conceptual dimension, it means recov-

ering the ethical essence of CSR, making the moral

imperative of respecting the core of the discourse and

prioritising ethical legitimacy over corporate strategy. The

practical impact of considering respect for cultural diver-

sity management is expressed in two dimensions. First, it

would serve to guide the development of anti-discrimina-

tion laws and equal opportunity policies. Second, it could

lead to innovative processes for learning and integrating

cultural diversity beyond mere compliance with current

legislation (Thomas and Ely 1996).

The management of cultural diversity must be seen as an

essential aspect of an organisation’s role in society. In

Hofmann’s view, the form and quality of diversity man-

agement will largely depend on the extent to which

organisations are understood to be parts of the society to

which they (should) feel responsible and the extent to

which companies contribute to sustainable development

(Hofmann 2012, p. 33). Moreover, cultural diversity is an

essential trait of humankind, and it is a moral imperative to

take into consideration when we coordinate people.

Ideology and Cultural Diversity

The concept of ‘‘Ideology’’ is controversial and has a long

history (Mannheim 1936; Freeden 2003; Therborn 1980;

Zima 1989). From its origin in 1796 when Destutt de Tracy

used the word for first time to refer a new science of ideas,

the definition of ideology has generated heated debate

(Eccleshall et al. 1993). Liberalisms, socialism, capitalism,

communism, nationalism or feminism have been labelled

as ideologies—often with negative connotation and no

clear definition about what ‘‘ideology’’ really means. What

do we really mean when we describe, e.g. socialism as

ideology? Answering this question requires a brief pre-

sentation of the concept of ideology and its evolution. In

this section, we follow Geuss’s (1981) proposal presenting

different conceptions of ideology (negative, descriptive and

positive) and arguing in favour of a conception of ideology

which views it as a construct that creates a positive vision

of plurality and diversity that would help to manage cul-

tural diversity.

As Mannheim (1936) stated, the concept of ideology is

older than Marxism, but it was Marx and Engels who

established the modern concept of ideology and gave it a

central role. With the publication of The German Ideology

(1846), Marx and Engels presented an interpretation of the

concept of ideology as ‘‘sublimation—in its various guises

such as morality, religion, and metaphysics—of material

life’’ (Freeden 2003, p. 6) and as a false hope that serves as

an instrument of control and domination in the hands of the

powerful.

According to Villorio, ideology is ‘‘a set of statements

not objectively justified, where belief is induced by certain

psychological motives (interests, preferences, etc.) despite

the lack of any sufficient basis for those statements’’

(Villorio 1985, p. 26). Based on this understanding, ide-

ology is a form of concealment, whereby the interests and

preferences of one social group are disguised as universal

interests and values and, thus, become acceptable for all.

‘‘Ideologies’’ are a set of statements expressing beliefs that

fulfil a dual social function in the form of cohesion between

members of a group and the dominion of one group or class

over others.

Based on this understanding, people use ideologies to

manipulate and exert cognitive mastery and power, not

with force but ‘‘by creating a framework within which

decisions can be taken and make sense’’ (Freeden 2003,

p. 11). Thus, ideology has a social impact at the individual

and institutional levels. At the individual level, ideology

has implications for cultural cohesion, individual behaviour

and a sense of identity, at the institutional level, it influ-

ences the organisations and processes that determine the

lives of all members of a community.

Authors like Mannheim (1936), Althusser (1969),

Geertz (1973) or Therborn (1980) do not share this nega-

tive vision of ideology. According to Mannheim, who

wanted to present a non-evaluative conception of ‘‘ideol-

ogy’’, ‘‘ideology’’ was a social and psychological mani-

festation of all historical environments that was not only

employed to manipulate (Mannheim 1936). Mannheim

emphasised the unconscious presuppositions that guide

human thinking, as well as the irrational foundations of

knowledge. After all, social groups operate on the basis of

shared rituals, prejudices, stories and histories—elements

that ideologies incorporate (Freeden 2003).

With a similar broad vision, Geertz (1973) proposed

ideologies as metaphors that carry social meaning, consti-

tuting maps of social reality. Thus understood, ideology is

a set of symbols that organise the social space at a his-

torical moment and respond to cognitive and emotive

tension in a specific society, thereby forging national

identity (Geertz 1973). For Göran Therborn: ‘‘Ideologies

nor only subject people to a given order. They also qualify

them for conscious social action, including actions of

gradual or revolutionary change’’ (Therborn 1980, p. vii).

The various interpretations of the concept of ideology can

be classified according to three uses of the concept:

descriptive, pejorative and positive (Geuss 1981). The

descriptive understanding of ideology attempts to describe

Cultural Diversity in Business: A Critical Reflection… 681

123

and explain certain features of human groups. In this use,

ideology refers to an area in which the cultural social system

can be divided for study and usually includes beliefs, atti-

tudes, psychological dispositions and rituals. Here, ideology

is understood as a subset of beliefs shared by the agents in

the group, where the elements are systematically intercon-

nected and central to the agents’ conceptual scheme; this

subset of beliefs has broad, deep influence over the agents’

behaviour; and those beliefs are central to the issues of

human life (Geuss 1981, p. 10).

The pejorative use of ideology, as proposed by Marx and

Engels, involves a criticism of the system of ideas, beliefs,

attitudes and desires of the people in a given society. Here,

‘‘ideology’’ is defined as an ‘‘illusion’’ or ‘‘false conscious-

ness’’ (Geuss 1981, p. 12) and can be ideologically false

because of epistemic properties of the beliefs, their functional

properties and some genetic properties. The epistemic prop-

erties refer to the available empirical evidence and cognitive

content for justifying those beliefs. The functional properties

refer to their role in supporting or legitimising certain kinds of

social institutions, practices and behaviours that tend to

dominate or repress a group of people against their ‘‘true’’

interests (Habermas 1963). The genetic properties of an

ideology refer to the origins or history of how these ideas are

acquired by a group of people. In this case, agents act

according to a set of beliefs without really being aware of

their reasons or motives for having these beliefs. Here, ‘‘an

ideology is a world-picture which stabilizes or legitimizes

domination’’ (Geuss 1981, p. 31).

The positive or laudatory use of the ideology concept is

based on recognition of the human need for meaning and

identity and on the aim to determine the best sociocultural

system or vision of the world that would help the members

of a group to satisfy their aspirations, needs and interests.

This use is productive in the sense that it ‘‘produces’’ a set

of beliefs and behaviours that enable the members of a

group to restructure society in their own interest. Thus an

‘‘ideology is something to be constructed, created, or

invented; it is a verité à faire’’ (Geuss 1981, p. 23). As

Althusser acknowledged the basic function of ideology is to

build up the human subjectivity. In the same way Therborn

understands the essential function of ideology: ‘‘The oper-

ation of ideology in human life basically involves the con-

stitution and patterning of how human beings live their lives

as conscious, reflecting initiators of acts in a structured,

meaningful world’’ (Therborn 1980, p. 15). This interpre-

tation of ideology as a process of formation of human

subject which implies a simultaneous process of subjection

and qualification that is especially valuable for our proposal

for an ideology of respect (Table 1).

Ideology is also present in the business literature. The

‘‘ideology of capitalism’’ (Fotaki and Prasad 2015) with the

central concept of homo economicus as a rational economic

actor has been discussed for decades. Management theories

taught in business faculties are based on the premise that

people are selfish, individualistic, calculating and have

defined, stable preferences (Ghoshal 2005). The reality is

more complicated and motives for action are multiple and

changeable. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen argues that

affection, bonds of identity and personal values often

compel us to act against our self-interest (Sen 2006; Ulrich

1993; Cortina 2007). As Ghoshal states, neither empirical

evidence nor common sense can sustain the pessimistic

idea that people are purely self-interested beings; it is a

question of ideology (Ghoshal 2005).

For the purpose of our article we are going to understand

‘‘tolerance’’ and ‘‘respect’’ as ideologies, more precisely as

‘‘inclusive Historical ideology[ies]’’ (Therborn 1980) in the

sense that every person is constituted as a conscious

member of a historical social world.

We are aware of the problems with this assumption, but

we are not the first to use the ‘‘ideology’’ label to deal with

the normative dimension of cultural diversity. Forsyth’s

(1980) seminal work on ethical ideologies uses ‘‘rela-

tivism’’ and ‘‘idealism’’ as two dimensions for the elabo-

ration of an ethical ideologies’ typology. Although this

typology is controversial, this use of the concept ‘‘ideol-

ogy’’ has inspired our contribution.

Although the distinction between ideology, science and

theory is controversial (Zima 1989; Habermas 1963), we

address ‘‘tolerance’’ and ‘‘respect’’ in terms of ideology and

not only in terms of theory for four reasons. First, because

‘‘tolerance’’ includes a set of different beliefs about

essential dimensions of human life (culture, personal

identity, power relations, etc.), second, because that set of

beliefs has a deep impact on social action and human

interaction although the agents are not fully aware of those

beliefs, third, because it has an emotional connotation, and

fourth, because that set of beliefs fulfils a dual social

function: cohesion between members of a cultural group

and dominion of one group over others.

It can be said that in the last 300 years, the ideology of

tolerance has organised the coexistence of people from

different traditions and has determined public policies,

legislation and social practices. Our proposal here is to

commit to the concept of respect and the positive over-

coming (Aufhebung) of tolerance to form the core of a

‘‘new ideology of respect’’ with specific implications for

managing cultural diversity in firms.

Tolerance: Perspectives and Implications

Tolerance has been the central idea organising coexistence

in plural societies. Understanding this process requires an

analysis of the concept of tolerance and its evolution over

682 J. F. Lozano, T. Escrich

123

the past centuries. It is important to clarify this point for

two reasons: first, because different concepts of tolerance

are based on different ideas about society, culture and

human nature, and second, because different concepts of

tolerance have diverse normative implications for dealing

with cultural diversity.

As Habermas (2005) reminds us, the idea of tolerance

was generated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in

the context of wars of religion. The original idea was to

demand tolerant behaviour from majorities towards

minorities (Lutherans, Huguenots and Papists) that is,

horizontal tolerance with authoritarian connotations. The

modern idea of tolerance was developed under the views of

rejection, acceptability and recusal, based on the issue of

the true religion (Hastedt 2012).

Since Locke’s ‘‘A Letter Concerning Toleration,’’

written in 1667, through to the present, tolerance continues

to be used to propose a minimum social peace and has been

understood as aiming to achieve ‘‘peaceful coexistence.’’

For Locke, the restrictive nature of tolerance is already

apparent, as degrees are established where tolerance is

permitted, depending on what is to be tolerated or from

whom it stems. Locke’s (1667) concept of tolerance was

significantly transformed by Voltaire (1763), who recog-

nised tolerance as the ‘‘panacea of humanity,’’ provided

men learned not to be fanatics. The author relies on reason

as the formula for not falling into blind obedience, trusting

in human beings’ ability to reflect on what is and is not

tolerable.

According to the traditional liberal school of thought

(one of whose founding fathers was J. Locke), tolerance is

seen as an individual right that must be understood as part

of the right to freedom. Von Humboldt (1792), St. Mill

(1859), Rawls (1971, 1993) and Nussbaum (2008) belong

to this tradition; they argue for an idea of tolerance that is

removed from conformism and identifies with self-criti-

cism and education. This is where the difference between

freedom of opinion and freedom of action is established;

freedom of opinion is unlimited, but freedom of action is

not. In his Theory of Justice (1971), John Rawls takes the

side of tolerance, which is understood as equal respect for

all beliefs. He believes in the need to base policy on men’s

rational decisions, and not on external or divine will, to

respond to the phenomenon of religious diversity from the

perspective of tolerance rather than imposition. Rawls

(1971) likens tolerance to the ‘‘duty of civility,’’ involving

the duty to listen to other people, and equanimity to decide

when it is reasonable to adapt to their points of view

(Hernández 2010). Thus, Rawls’ concept of tolerance rests

on enlightened rationalism and a pragmatic vision,

according to which intolerance can be tolerated, provided it

does not endanger liberal society (Hastedt 2012).

In keeping with the same liberal tradition, but distancing

herself from the liberalism of rules and institutions, Nuss-

baum states that rules are not sufficient for daily life;

rather, real, daily interaction is needed between people so

that tolerance does not degenerate into pure indifference

(Hastedt 2012, p. 59). In the many examples presented in

her book, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s

Tradition of Religious Equality, she highlights that the

‘‘idea of separation’’ or the intended impartiality of some

states is not effective or sufficient. A diverse society must

be organised around the principles of equality, respect for

conscience, freedom, adaptation, non-establishment of a

Table 1 Three uses of the ideology concept

Authors Definitions Essential traits Perspectives

Marx and

Engels

(1846)

Villorio

(1985)

Sublimation of material life

Set of statements not objectively justified, whereby

belief is induced by certain psychological motives

(interests, preferences, etc.)

– False hope

– Instrument of control and domination

– Beliefs that fulfil a dual social function: cohesion and

dominion of one group or class over others

Negative

Althusser

(1969)

Mannheim

(1936)

Geertz

(1973)

Metaphors that carry social meaning and constitute

maps of social reality

Omnipresent, inevitable superstructure that does not

always aim to manipulate

Descriptive

Geuss

(1981)

Therborn

(1980)

Ideology is something to be constructed, created or

invented

Recognition of the human need for meaning and identity

Aims to determine the sociocultural system or vision of the

world that would be most appropriate for satisfying

aspirations, needs and interests of a group

Positive

Source own elaboration based on Geuss (1981)

Cultural Diversity in Business: A Critical Reflection… 683

123

religion and separation to respond with justice (Nussbaum

2008, p. 36).

In contrast to the liberal vision and procedural argument,

Walzer (1997) proposes a criticism of the liberal approach

to tolerance and a defence of tolerance based on pragmatic

and factual assumptions. The essential criticism of the

model of liberal tolerance is that it is not based on authentic

interaction but on pure indifference, and tolerance is pre-

sented as a false ideal (Hastedt 2012). Based on this

interpretation, tolerance is a practical issue, as it sustains a

peaceful life in a community without renouncing differ-

ence. ‘‘Tolerance makes difference possible, [and] differ-

ence makes tolerance necessary’’ (Walzer 1997, p. 13).

Tolerance is linked to a strong cultural identity and well-

defined groups, among which peaceful coexistence is

sought without ever attempting to dilute identities, indi-

viduals or groups. In fact, he states that ‘‘We need to shape

regimes of tolerance that strengthen different groups and

which may even encourage individuals to identify strongly

with one or more of those groups’’ (Walzer 1997, p. 103).

Similarly, Zizeck (2013) regards multiculturalism and tol-

erance as central ideologies of global capitalism.

For Habermas, tolerance becomes a way of containing

conflict because he considers that ‘‘it protects a pluralist

society from being torn apart like a political community by

conflicts between rival world visions’’ (2005, p. 261). Thus,

he states that ‘‘pluralist world visions and the fight for

religious tolerance are drivers of the democratic state and

both these factors even now continue to provide stimulus to

shape the state consequentially’’ (2005, p. 260). Habermas

uses reason as a basic criterion for legitimating tolerance.

To exercise tolerance, convincing reasons and good argu-

ments are required to reject those who hold different

beliefs. Thus, ‘‘there can only be a discourse on tolerance if

the participants can support their rejection in a lasting

disagreement in ‘rational’ terms’’ (2005, p. 262). He con-

siders that ‘‘tolerance can only begin after discrimination,’’

and so ‘‘tolerance is only necessary when the parties nei-

ther seek nor believe possible any rational agreement on

the basis of the dispute’’ (2005, p. 262).

As this brief historical–philosophical review shows, the

concept of tolerance continues to be controversial and has a

variety of nuances and very important practical implica-

tions. As Forst (2003) recognises, tolerance is a concept in

conflict that requires not only historical analysis but also a

systematic analysis of its epistemological and normative

dimensions.

To begin, the central aspects of the concept must be

identified. The first is the context of tolerance that leads us

to identify the subject of tolerance (what groups) and the

object (what practices). The second aspect is what we

could call the ‘‘rejection’’ component, whereby normative

assumptions are presented to reject certain specific

practices. This point is extremely important, as it allows us

to distance ourselves from indifference and, above all, from

an acritical acceptance of prejudices. ‘‘Tolerance without

an exchange of opinion is indifference and not tolerance’’

(Hastedt 2012, p. 15). The reasons for the rejection must be

grounded and defensible and must serve to unmask preju-

dices. The third component is acceptance. Acceptance is a

question of recognising that there are positive reasons that

outweigh the negative ones and that there are more

important reasons that lead us to accept the error or the

negative aspect of certain practices or opinions. The fourth

aspect is about drawing lines between what is tolerable and

what is not, and it assumes that the idea that ‘‘everything’’

can be tolerated is a contradiction. The difficult question of

the limits of tolerance can be decided only through the

moral basis for tolerance (Forst 2003; Habermas 2005).

Finally, tolerance must be understood as political praxis

and as an individual attitude or virtue.

Based on the above components of tolerance, and in

keeping with Forst (2003), we can identify four broad

conceptions of tolerance. These conceptions, sets of ideas,

rules and practices, are present in current society and have

practical implications for daily coexistence in the public

space and in the employment and professional fields. Thus,

tolerance can be conceived of as follows:

– Permission (Erlaubnis) in reference to relations

between an authority or majority and a minority: this

conception is more than four centuries old (Edict of

Nantes, 1598) but continues to be very present in some

current political and legal systems. It assumes that the

minority has permission to carry out these practices,

which are considered ‘‘private’’ while they do not

generate unacceptable ethical and political conse-

quences. Based on this conception, the situation of

tolerance is not one of reciprocity and is understood as

the ‘‘least-worst’’ solution.

– Coexistence here, tolerance is based on a pragmatic–

instrumental vision in a horizontal relationship in

which there is no majority group and there is a

reciprocal commitment to some rules of modus vivendi.

According to this relativistic conception, tolerance is

based more on practical urgency than on strong rational

arguments and principia.

– Appreciation of the value of difference (Wertschätzung)

where reciprocal recognition is demanded and where

the customs and world visions of other people or groups

are not only accepted but are also, although not shared,

considered valuable in themselves. Some ideas, prac-

tices and habits of this way of life are considered

valuable even if some of them are rejected.

– Respect where different people respect each other as

autonomous people and as equal members of a political

684 J. F. Lozano, T. Escrich

123

community. In this conception, the autonomy of each

individual supposes the recognition of the right to

justify norms and is indisputable. People are respected,

and opinions and actions are tolerated.

After this short historical and analytical review, we can

conclude that the idea of tolerance has evolved in a way

which, we believe, leads to respect. The conception of

tolerance transformed by dialogue, understood as virtue

requiring a normative basis, approximates it to a concept of

respect that is more responsive to the ethical demands of

the modern phenomenon of cultural diversity (Table 2).

Culture of Respect: Far Beyond Tolerance

As we have seen, the concept of tolerance has evolved with

various interpretations, but it cannot be identified with

respect. A person can tolerate something, but that does not

mean that he or she feels respect for what is tolerated

(Cortina 1997). Our concept of respect is more inclusive

and exceeds the conception of tolerance that is associated

with pacific coexistence. It is about generating a positive

interaction that generates plural and enriching coexistence.

As Kant (1785) recognised more than two centuries ago,

respect is seen as a feeling that emerges spontaneously

from a concept of reason and is manifested in a willingness

to comply with practical law: ‘‘the immediate determina-

tion of will by law and awareness of the same is called

respect’’ (Kant 1785, p. BA17). One of the initial features

differentiating tolerance from respect is that respect is an

appreciation of something valuable. Respect is an attitude

with a cognitive, affective, conative and evaluative

dimension (Dillon 2014).

Respect is guided by reason, and, therefore, the logic of

respect is the logic of objectivity and universality. Objec-

tivity, in this case, means that respect is not based on

personal desire or interest but on the ‘‘object’’ itself as

being worthy of respect (in fact, we can respect things we

do not like or agree with). It is also based on universality

insofar as if we respect an object for quality X, we must

respect any other object that possesses this quality (Dillon

2007, p. 204). This defence of universality must not be

understood as a suppression of differences; rather, ‘‘respect

should involve attending to each person as a distinctive

individual and to the concrete realities of human lives, and

it should involve valuing difference as well as sameness

and interdependence as well as independence’’ (Dillon

2007, p. 209).

This conception of respect, with its marked Kantian

origin, is based on the human capacity for the autonomy

and recognition of equal dignity. ‘‘Respect for rationality

also involves acknowledging that people have a funda-

mental right to freedom or thought, conscience and reli-

gion’’ (Dillon 2007, p. 210). Similarly, Cortina (1993,

1997, 2007) argues that intercultural dialogue that does not

neutralise difference or reduce diversity is a duty for any

society that takes its own citizens and the citizens of the

world seriously.

Respect requires the ability to judge and rational reflec-

tion. The ability to judge permits knowledge and under-

standing of differences (even if not shared), which leads to

another important feature of respect, genuine recognition.

Taylor (1992) states that false recognition or a lack of

Table 2 Conceptions of tolerance

Our

classification

Essential traits Forst’s (2003) classification Authors

Original

tolerance

Tolerant behaviour from majorities towards minorities (horizontal

tolerance with authoritarian connotations)

Aim to achieve ‘‘peaceful coexistence’’

Permission Locke (1667)

Voltaire (1763)

Von Humboldt

(1792)

Liberal tolerance Tolerance is seen as an individual right that must be understood as part of

the right to freedom

Tolerance rests on enlightened rationalism and a pragmatic vision

Intolerance can be tolerated as long as it does not endanger liberal society

Coexistence St. Mill (1859)

Rawls (1971,

1993)

Nussbaum

(2008)

Strong identity

tolerance

Tolerance is linked to a strong cultural identity and well-defined groups

There is no intention to dilute identities, individuals or groups

Appreciation of the value of

the difference

Walzer (1997)

Zizeck (2013)

Discursive

tolerance

Convincing reasons and good arguments are required to reject people with

different beliefs

A normative foundation is required

Respect Habermas

(2005)

Forst (2003)

Source own elaboration

Cultural Diversity in Business: A Critical Reflection… 685

123

recognition can be a form of oppression that imprisons

someone in a false, deformed, and simplistic way of being.

For Taylor, a lack of recognition is a total lack of respect, as it

is not a courtesy but a ‘‘vital human need’’ (Taylor 1992,

p. 21). Along these same lines, but from the tradition of

discursive ethics, Cortina (2007) argues that recognition

implies respect for the dignity of people and is expressed

through the recognition of rights and the empowerment of

capabilities (Sen 1999; Nussbaum 1997).

Like Taylor, Sennett presents a concept of respect that is

linked to recognition and its manifestations, such as ‘‘sta-

tus,’’ ‘‘dignity’’ and ‘‘honour.’’ In his work Respect in a

World of Inequality, Sennett introduces a general and easily

understandable definition of ‘‘respect’’ as ‘‘tak[ing] the

needs of others seriously’’ (2004, p. 62). Even though this

definition lacks conceptual precision and a normative

foundation, it has precise implications for managing

diversity in society: ‘‘When there is lack of respect the

other people are not insulted, but neither are they granted

recognition; simply they are not seen as integral human

beings whose presence is important’’ (Sennett 2004, p. 17).

Gutmann also argues in this direction and makes a clear

distinction between tolerance and respect:

Tolerance spreads to the widest range of opinions as

long as there are no threats and other direct and

discernible damage to other people. Respect is much

more selective. Although we do not have to agree

with a position to respect it, we must understand that

it reflects a moral point of view. (1992, p. 19)

This defence of the ‘‘moral point of view’’ has very clear

consequences for marking the limits of respect. It implies a

commitment to the rational evaluation of other beliefs and

cultural practices and the decision to reject any belief,

practice or behaviour that cannot be justified by rational

arguments. Thus, Gutmann considers that opinions that

disdain the interests of others are not worthy of respect, nor

are those that ‘‘make radically unlikely empirical state-

ments (for example racial inferiority) and which are not

based on publicly shared or accessible rules of evidence’’

(1992, p. 19).

The difference between tolerance and respect has also

been expressed in two different responses to cultural

diversity. The first and most widespread has been the

multiculturalism approach (Kymlicka 1995), which is

based on a traditional concept of tolerance and is intended

to achieve pacific coexistence between different groups.

The second is interculturalism, which aspires for positive

interaction and creative life together, passing from mere

coexistence (like passengers on a train) to positive inter-

action (Bartolomé and Cabrera 2003).

The multicultural approach has a series of limitations,

which, in Cantle’s (2012) view, can be overcome by the

intercultural approach. He believes that interculturalism

increases social cohesion, promotes dialogue and helps to

change opinions and behaviours towards others. Further-

more, in keeping with what is being argued here, the

intercultural model favours the development of a concept

of mutual respect, promoting diversity by intensifying trust

and understanding through interaction.

From the interculturalism perspective, the basic traits of

our concept of respect are the principles of equality, dif-

ference and positive interaction. Interculturalism interprets

cultural pluralism by going beyond the multicultural

approach in the sense that it recognises ‘‘the intense

interaction between cultures that de facto exists’’ (Instituto

Iberoamericano de Derechos Humanos, IIDH 2009, p. 18).

The key concept of the intercultural model is the ‘‘inter-

action’’ between different groups of people and ethnicities.

Interculturalism introduces a dynamic perspective of cul-

ture. Without this perspective of cultural creation and

identities, there is a high risk of essentialism, ethnicities

and culturalism. Moreover, interculturalism focuses on

interaction and relationships, mutual influence, syncretism

and cultural mix, which are more relevant in our globalised

world today than ever before (Giménez 1996, 2003). The

defining characteristic of this proposal is the idea of

intercultural dialogue and communication (Meer and

Modood 2011; Salazar 2009; Levey 2012).

Thus, ‘‘respect’’ is presented as a more inclusive concept

containing rationality, recognition and dialogue as essential

elements for managing interculturalism in business

(Steinmann and Scherer 1998; Cortina 1994, 1997; Pless

and Maak 2004). Although the concept of respect has many

different philosophical roots, we follow here specifically

the Kantian tradition reformulated by the discursive

approach which has the following basic traits and practical

implications:

– Sensitivity to emotions and sentiments from the Kantian

definition, respect is a feeling generated by reason

(Kant 1785). Thus, from its modern origin, respect

includes an emotional dimension together with the

rational one. To respect someone implies the emotional

involvement of the person who acts and, in turn,

considers of the feelings of others. There may be people

for whom certain symbols, practices or rituals have a

great emotional value, and even if we do not share that

emotional value or the reasons underpinning it, we deal

considerately with the people for whom they are

important. Understanding other peoples’ emotions and

not ignoring, despising or ridiculing them is proof of

respect.

– Sincerity from the Kantian definition of respect and the

formulation of the categorical imperative of the

‘‘kingdom of ends’’ (Kant 1785, p. BA67),

686 J. F. Lozano, T. Escrich

123

manipulation and lies are unacceptable from the moral

point of view. In addition, in discursive ethics (Apel

1988; Habermas 1981, 1991; Cortina 1985), the

assumptions of rational argumentation demand sincer-

ity and truthfulness as an implicit ethical principle in

rational discourse and as an exercise in respect towards

the other participants in the dialogue.

– Equality respect is based on the idea that all people

have equal dignity and that there are no first- and

second-class citizens. Thus, respect means considering

everyone as ‘‘valid interlocutors’’ in a rational dis-

course which does not admit paternalism. No one can

make decisions for others, and it is not acceptable to

marginalise or ‘‘leave out’’ any person or group. This

concept of equality must not be understood as an

equality of minimums or the cancellation of differ-

ences. Rather ‘‘equal treatment demands that all

citizens have equal opportunities to use equally

distributed rights and freedoms to carry out their own

life plans’’ (Habermas 2005, p. 271).

– Willingness to listen and awareness of other people’s

objectives and goals although, as already shown, we

can identify the ideology of tolerance as ‘‘allowing to

do,’’ respect represents a genuine interest in under-

standing those who are different. Renouncing arro-

gance and being open to other people’s objectives and

goals is a demonstration of respect.

– Self-criticism and rational evaluation of cultural prac-

tices another manifestation of respect is the critical

questioning of one’s own culture and the demand for

reasons for the opinions and cultural practices of others.

Rational argumentation and the force of the best

argument determine the legitimacy of opinions, beliefs

and cultural practices. Thus, as Habermas (2005) and

Forst (2003) state, everyone must be able to translate

his or her arguments into reasons that are acceptable on

the basis of values and principles of public reason.

Obviously, this does not mean that we ignore the

emotional dimension of intercultural respect. Argu-

ments and good reasons are the elements for legitimat-

ing and evaluating cultural differences, but cultural

diversity requires proper emotional education (Nuss-

baum 1997, 2010) and a concept of ‘‘cordial reason’’ 2

(Cortina 2007) that goes beyond Cartesian reasons.

To summarise the differences between tolerance and

respect we can say that respect is not indifference but a

positive attitude to others, it implies an active recognition

of the differences, it involves rational reflection on cultural

differences and the limits of acceptability, and finally,

respect implies a critical attitude towards one’s own

culture. The idea of respect implies a theoretical and

anthropological assumption about the nature of the person

that goes far beyond tolerance and neutrality.

The Ideology of Respect and Managerial Practice

Perspectives for Work on Diversity

In the social and political spheres, diversity management

models have been aimed at ‘‘ordering’’ life in society, and

being a part of that society, firms also have to take steps to

manage cultural diversity. In firms, ‘‘diversity management

is a voluntary organizational program designed to bring

about greater inclusion of all individuals in informal social

networks and formal company programs’’ (Gilbert et al.

1999, p. 61).

The challenge of cultural diversity has been a concern of

firms for years. Motorola’s book Uncompromising Integrity

(1998) is a paradigmatic case. With the appearance in the

US of diversity management strategies in firms in the

1990s, various lines of action have been adopted, and some

models for dealing with cultural diversity have been

developed; however, the implementation of diversity

management strategies is still controversial (McKenzie and

Forde 2009). In fact, the very concept of diversity in

management (DiM) is controversial (Krell and Sieben

2011, p. 159), but in general, it refers to the ways in which

companies deal with diversity and how minority groups are

integrated into formal structures and informal networks so

that they can make a positive contribution to the organi-

sation and develop professionally.

There are many different proposals, but we will focus

here on three specific models of organisations’ responses to

diversity that we consider of special relevance to the idea

of a ‘‘respectful company.’’

(1) According to Thomas and Ely (1996), there are three

paradigms for managing cultural diversity. The

authors present two traditional paradigms for diver-

sity management and propose a third, which emerges

from their own fieldwork. The first, the ‘‘discrimi-

nation-and-fairness paradigm,’’ is the most dominant

and widely used; it focuses on action for equal

opportunities and equal treatment in recruitment

processes. In this type of organisation, the personnel

is varied, but this does not transfer to the work.

Managers use the top-down model to conduct,

control and monitoring processes. The main limita-

tion with this paradigm is the belief that ‘‘we are all

equal’’ based on the principle of the assimilation of

the dominant culture, whereby diversity is reduced,

attempting to project the image of a company in 2

Cordial from the Latin cord, cordis means friendly reason.

Cultural Diversity in Business: A Critical Reflection… 687

123

which discrimination does not exist. This paradigm

undermines the organisation’s potential to learn,

because it adopts the premise of ‘‘we all want the

same thing’’ and the company ‘‘should operate as if

every person were of the same race, gender and

nationality’’ (Thomas and Ely 1996, p. 5).

The second one, the access-and-legitimacy paradigm,

celebrates difference as an advantage for business. It emerged

in the 1980s and 1990s in the context of demographic move-

ments and growing social diversity. Customers are also cul-

turally diverse and possibly more critical. This paradigm

focuses on using diversity to cover more market niches;

therefore, one of the main disadvantages is that employees

will feel used if they do not have real opportunities for pro-

motion. According to Thomas and Ely, this paradigm ‘‘tends

to emphasize the role of cultural differences in a company

without really analysing those differences to see how they

actually affect the work that is done’’ (1996, p. 11).

The third paradigm—‘‘integration and learning’’ or

‘‘connecting diversity to work perspectives’’—focuses on

integration as a principle. It overcomes the instrumental

and strategic vision of the previous paradigms and values

the fact that different perspectives can have a positive

impact on the organisation. This ‘‘integration and learning’’

paradigm has a positive evaluation of diversity and seeks to

integrate cultural differences into core work and work

processes. ‘‘This perspective links diversity to work pro-

cesses—the way people do and experience the work—in a

manner that makes diversity a resource for learning and

adaptive change’’ (Ely and Thomas 2001, p. 240).

(2) Another relevant classification is offered by Cox

(1993) and Cox and Blake (1991). These authors

establish a typology in which they describe three

types of organisations according to the degree of or

interest shown in diversity and its management.

Cox’s objective is to present a management model of

the impact of diversity, whereby ‘‘members of all

sociocultural backgrounds can contribute and

achieve their full potential’’ (Cox 1993, p. 60). The

first step towards achieving this objective is to

classify responses to cultural diversity by type of

organisation. Cox proposed three types of organisa-

tions: monolithic, plural and multicultural. 3

The

monolithic organisation is the typical model of

organisation with cultural uniformity, an assimila-

tion culture, minimal integration processes and a

large inequality gap (Ortlieb and Sieben 2013). The

second type—the plural organisation—has a signif-

icant degree of diversity, but in terms of

organisational culture, it continues to be monolithic

because the emphasis is on the assimilation of the

dominant culture. These organisations usually take

steps to be more inclusive and to develop affirmative

action programmes (manager training, audits of

compensation systems, etc.), but they continue with

the assimilation approach of monolithic organisa-

tions (Cox 1993, p. 61). Finally, the authors defend

the multicultural organisation as the one in which

members with non-traditional backgrounds con-

tribute to increasing the organisation’s potential. A

multicultural organisation uses difference to promote

pluralism, valuing difference and fully integrating it

into all levels of the organisation, as well as into

informal networks. This model will lead to the

absence of discrimination, thereby reducing inter-

group conflicts based on ethnic origin, religion or

sex. This type of organisation makes a distinction

between tolerating and valuing diversity.

(3) The third model is proposed by Ortlieb and Sieben

(2013). The advantage of this model is that it is based

on a solid theoretical rationale that focuses on the

business logic and interest in obtaining critical

resources from ethnic minorities. The authors identify

five strategies regarding the employment of ethnic

minorities. The first one—‘‘exclusion’’—is developed

by companies that refuse to employ ethnic minorities.

These companies tend to view ethnic minorities as not

having the competences they demand, and they have a

negative impression of cultural diversity. The second

strategy is called ‘‘adding value through mere labor,’’

and ethnic minorities are employed because ‘‘they are

willing to work for low wages or in undesired jobs’’

(Ortlieb and Sieben2013,p. 497). The third strategy—

the ‘‘antidiscrimination’’ strategy—focuses on

employing the best workers, ignoring their cultural

background. The objective is to attract and retain

highly skilled workers while also gaining legitimacy

in the eyes of customers, suppliers and other employ-

ees (or future employees). Anti-discrimination strate-

gies can also be guided by legal compliance or moral

aspiration, but the authors assume that the business

rationale is the primary argument. The fourth strat-

egy—‘‘adding value through ethnic background’’—

considers ethnic background as offering a business

advantage. Factors such as language and cultural skills

or marketing arguments (identification with consumer

groups) (Krell and Sieben 2011, p. 163) are the main

reasons for hiring ethnic minorities. The fifth strategy

is ‘‘learning,’’ whereby an ethnic minority group with

specific competences (new approach and perspec-

tives) can contribute to a more innovative company.

Here, a heterogeneous workforce is considered a

3 ‘‘Multicultural’’ is the word used by Cox. He makes no difference

between ‘‘multicultural’’ and ‘‘intercultural’’.

688 J. F. Lozano, T. Escrich

123

prerequisite for organisational learning and is highly

valued (Ortlieb and Sieben 2013, p. 499).

These three models are relevant to this paper because

they establish an evolutionary classification of integrating

diversity management from the negation to the integration

of diversity through organisational learning. These models

are compatible and consistent with our interpretation of

diversity management from indifference to tolerance and,

finally, respect, which we present at the end of this paper.

The three models presented here (Cox and Blake 1991;

Cox 1993, 2001; Thomas and Ely 1996; Ortlieb and Sieben

2013) propose a way to increase cultural diversity in

organisations in which leadership and learning are key pro-

cesses. Leadership and organisational culture play a critical

role in managing and integrating diversity: ‘‘diversity man-

agement should occur at the strategic, tactical and opera-

tional levels through a range of different activities involving

managers at all three levels’’ (Shen et al. 2015, p. 245).

Many authors view leadership as a crucial element for

understanding and promoting diverse cultural values and for

establishing objective criteria for managing differences. Cox

and Blake (1991) propose diversity training as part of the

organisational structure, Ortlieb and Sieben (2011, 2013) con-

sider learning as the best strategy, and Thomas and Ely (1996,

2001) highlight the importance of leadership as a key dimension

and state that no progress can be made without clear leadership

to promote and value these principles. Along these same lines,

authors such as Liff (1999), and Shen et al. (2015) focus on the

human resources (HR) system to promote change towards an

organisational culture that tends to value and respect cultural

diversity by integrating differences without assimilation.

Good leadership, however, is not sufficient to manage

diversity. The entire structure of the organisation must be

designed to consider diversity as opportunity for innova-

tion, which can be beneficial to both management and

workers. Thus, the organisation must have a flexible

structure that allows for evaluation and learning, includes

all its workers and gives them the same opportunities. A

core process in managing cultural diversity is opening up to

a dialogue to reconsider and re-evaluate the lines of

organisational culture, thereby allowing for systems that

detect disadvantages for cultural minorities (Cox and Blake

1991; Cox 1993; Thomas and Ely 1996). Apparently, such

a step is not easy to take, and some companies are devel-

oping superficial initiatives more as an ‘‘alibi’’ than as a

strategy (Köpple 2014, p. 9). As Cox and Blake point out,

‘‘Just having diversity (…) is not sufficient to produce benefits. We must also manage it’’ (1991, p. 50).

According to Shen et al. (2015), there must first be a

change in the selection, recruitment and management of

HR, moving from a traditional HR model to a model for

HR diversity management practices

that recognizes diversity is critical for organizational

success (…). HRM diversity policies at operational level are implemented at the workplace, involving

mainly educating employees, identity-based net-

working groups, targeting communications to differ-

ent affinity group members, flexible employment, and

support for generating a work–life balance. (Shen

et al., 2015, p. 245)

One example of this main interest in HRM is the results

of The Charter of Diversity in Spain, whereby HR policies

comprise the greatest number of initiatives for managing

diversity (Fundación Diversidad 2013; Observatorio

Español del Racismo y la Xenofobia 2011).

Reasons for Work on Diversity: Beyond the Business

Case

In the previous section we have presented three approaches to

diversity management, now we will explore why they do it.

We have identified two kinds of reasons: economic and nor-

mative (ethics and legal).

From the economic perspective, there is general agree-

ment with the following statement by Kochan et al.: ‘‘Or-

ganizations that invest their resources in taking advantage

of the opportunities that diversity offers should outperform

those that fail to make such investments’’ (2003, p. 18).

Cultural diversity can offer advantages, such as

strengthening the organisation’s culture, improving the

company’s global reputation, increasing creativity and

innovation or building loyalty among customers of differ-

ent origins (Cox and Blake 1991; Thomas and Ely 1996;

Shen et al. 2015; Escuela de Organización Industrial, EOI

2009; Fundación Bertelsmann 2012; Krell and Sieben

2011, p. 161 et seq.; Franken 2015). However, as Ortlieb

and Sieben state, ‘‘research remains inconclusive about the

outcomes of ethnic diversity’’ (2013, p. 488).

Krell and Sieben (2011) summarise the economic reasons

in favour of diversity management as follows: (1) the

employment structure is changing and becoming increasingly

diverse, (2) the cost of managing diversity conflicts and the

resulting demotivation is high, (3) diverse groups are more

creative and are better at resolving problems, (4) having

minority workers attracts other workers from those minorities

(HR marketing), (5) having workers from minorities brings

the firm closer to those groups (marketing), (6) developing

diversity management policies is seen as part of CSR and can

attract more responsible investors, 4 (7) diverse groups are

4 We consider that this view of CSR as an attractive incentive for

investors could also extend to customers, workers, suppliers and

society in general.

Cultural Diversity in Business: A Critical Reflection… 689

123

more innovative and flexible and (8) having diversity in the

organisation facilitates internationalisation.

Although the management of cultural diversity can offer a

variety of benefits, the approach that predominates in most

studies is descriptive and orients management according to

the criteria of efficiency and competitive advantage (busi-

ness case). For instance, the study by Ortlieb and Sieben

(2013) shows that employing people from other cultural

groups in customer contact positions (call lines, sales posi-

tions, etc.) has positive, direct effects on the company.

However, the authors state that this is merely a short-term

benefit which ignores the advantages of long-term cultural

diversity. Noon (2007) and Cox and Blake (1991) also make

similar claims in their criticism of the business case approach

because of its short-termism and blinkered view.

In the above section, we presented some of the most

widely cited models for working on diversity in organisa-

tions. Underlying the above models and proposals is an

explicit assumption that cultural diversity is beneficial for

the firm (business case). However, the theoretical back-

ground of these models is different. Cox’s approach is

based on cultural adaptation and is strongly influenced by

the normative perspective, Thomas and Ely’s theoretical

background is based on management perspectives and

Ortlieb and Sieben’s proposal is based on resource

dependence theory. The business case argumentation has

flaws and some risk (Noon 2007). One major criticism, in

our opinion, is that it assumes the primacy of managerial

discourse and economic rationality over political (do not

question power relations) and ethical concerns, when in

fact, cultural diversity is essentially about identity, fair

treatment and social justice. To quote Noon, ‘‘Equality of

opportunity is a human right based in moral legitimacy

(social justice), rather than economic circumstances’’

(Noon 2007, p. 781).

We acknowledge that the normative (legitimacy)

dimension of DiM is more or less explicit in the models

presented above; however, in our view, it needs further

argumentation. The business case and normative perspec-

tives are not exclusive or opposite. On the contrary, in

many cases, they reinforce each other, in other cases, they

compete; and in exceptional cases, they are incompatible.

Our perspective is integrative, in line with Krell and Sieben

(2011), and takes a broader perspective based on the

integrative rationality proposed by Ulrich (1993, 1997) and

the dialogue perspective (Steinmann and Scherer1998).

The business case for diversity needs to be comple-

mented by a normative discussion about which cultural

practices should and should not be accepted. From our

perspective, respect is the key normative concept for

dealing with cultural diversity. Respect means the recog-

nition of a person’s culture, values, customs and way of

life. Recognition is, thus, a basic need for individuals:

The principle of recognition reflects the basic human

experiences that we, as vulnerable human beings, are

mutually dependent on each other’s recognition—

emotionally, legally/politically, and in terms of soli-

darity (…) whatever our beliefs are, whatever our cultural background is, (…) we all share the need for recognition. It is a part of the human condition. (Pless

and Maak, 2004, p. 134)

At the collective level, therefore, we find that differ-

ences have to live in harmony, rather than merely coexist,

thereby rendering the requirement for tolerance obsolete in

favour of the intercultural management of difference.

Unfortunately, this perspective is not dominant—at least in

Spain, where only differences that impact the operation of

a work group are addressed (EOI 2009).

This is not merely a question of training staff for insertion

into different employment environments (European

Comission 2006); rather, workers will be empowered to

become better citizens because, according to Valentine and

Fleischman, ‘‘If employees are trained to value diversity at

work, they may in fact value individual differences in their

daily lives outside work’’ (2002, p. 303). Diversity is not only

a way of doing business, but it also provides ‘‘a multitude of

beliefs, understandings, values, ways of viewing the world,

and unique information’’ (Shen et al. 2015, p. 235), which are

inevitably transferred to all the spheres of peoples’ lives—

not just to the employment sphere (Gualda 2001).

Good management of cultural diversity in firms is

undeniably important for the economic and normative

reasons presented above. However, there is also a common

agreement about the value of cultural diversity itself.

UNESCO’S 2001 Universal Declaration on Cultural

Diversity states that globalisation is a challenge for har-

mony in diversity while also recognising that ‘‘cultural

diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is

for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of

humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the

benefit of present and future generations’’ (UNESCO 2001,

Article 1).

The importance and value of preserving and recognising

diversity were also highlighted by the UNDP in its 2004

Human Development Report titled ‘‘Cultural Liberty in

Today’s Diverse World.’’ This report highlights the

important issue of conflict. It is not a question of avoiding

conflicts that stem from diversity, because conflict is

inseparable from life in society; rather, conflict must be

dealt with appropriately and managed pacifically. The

report points out that not tackling conflict stemming from

fights for cultural identity can become a source of insta-

bility and violence. Furthermore, the report warns that

‘‘cultural liberty is violated by the failure to respect or

recognise […] values… and by discrimination […] based

690 J. F. Lozano, T. Escrich

123

on cultural identity’’ (2004, p. 27). Intercultural conflicts in

firms are genuinely difficult to manage largely because of

the emotional component. Linguistic communication is

often not a good solution (Glinow et al. 2004).

The Principles for Responsible Management Education

(United Nations 2009) and the Global Compact also rec-

ognize the importance of diversity in business: ‘‘As a

result, business is at the forefront of dealing with the many

and complex cross-cultural challenges of operating in a

global environment. Companies must manage diverse

workplaces’’ (Doing Business in a Multicultural World:

Challenges and Opportunities, 2009, p. 16).

The above reports present ideas that many firms already

know about and problems to which they have had to respond.

Conflicts stem from the inappropriate management of cul-

tural diversity—for example, the case of Nidia Eweida ver-

sus British Airways concerning religious discrimination 5 or

IBM’s solution for identifying women wearing veils 6 are

different expressions of the specific challenges of managing

cultural diversity. We can also view initiatives such as the

Lufthansa exchange and practicum programme (Rühl 2011,

p. 189, et seq.) and the small Spanish firm Agromartin’s

efforts towards social harmony among different religious

beliefs 7 as positive examples of how to deal with cultural

diversity appropriately and effectively.

Respect Ideology in Action

Keeping in mind the DiM models presented here and the

philosophical differences between tolerance and respect,

we present the ideology of respect as a key milestone for

managing cultural diversity. Our proposal is based on three

main pillars: the philosophical distinction between toler-

ance and respect, Cantle’s distinction between multicul-

turalism and interculturalism, and the models of integration

presented in the previous section (Table 3).

As can be seen from the table above, a business that

develops a cultural diversity management approach from

the tolerance perspective understands cultural diversity as a

descriptive approach to the fact and does not question the

legitimacy or otherwise of the differences. The motivation

to manage diversity is increased productivity because it

reduces conflict-associated costs and benefits from the

creativity of cultural diversity; but whatever the case, the

most important factor is the firm’s profitability.

Stemming from the motivation to increase productivity,

specific proposals tend to eliminate or reduce diversity

through de-culturation (Entkulturalisierung) (Steinmann

and Scherer 1998), and purportedly neutral rules, standards

and procedures are established so that diversity does not

generate conflict. The type of relationship presented in a

tolerance approach is asymmetrical between the majority

and the minority. In this case, the majority refers not to the

most numerous group but to the most powerful one—for

example, a multinational working in a country with a dif-

ferent culture or a business in its relations with suppliers

from countries with different cultures. This model of a

‘‘tolerance company’’ shares some essential traits with the

monolithic and plural models presented by Cox and Blake

(1991), the discrimination and fairness paradigm proposed

by Thomas and Ely (1996) and Ortlieb and Sieben’s (2013)

anti-discrimination and ‘‘adding value through ethnic

background’’ strategies. At this level, the power relation

status quo remains, and the logic of majorities versus

minorities is accepted.

However, our proposition for a business that manages

cultural diversity from an ‘‘ideology of intercultural respect’’

or from an ‘‘intercultural ethical point of view’’ (Pless and

Maak 2004, p. 134) considers it essential to reflect on the

normative principles of difference and attempts to distin-

guish between legitimate and non-legitimate differences that

generate inequality and unfair situations. The motivation for

the respect approach is to build a fair business in which

people’s basic rights take priority over productivity and are

the essential criteria for proposing solutions to any cultural

conflicts. People and their dignity come before profitability,

efficiency and productivity. To achieve this, it is not suffi-

cient to establish standards or ‘‘rules of the game’’; rather,

there must be a good conversation (Bird 1996) and a rational

dialogue on cultural differences and their origins, implica-

tions and symbolism. This dialogue must be based on the

principle of respect for individual identity and, as proposed

in discursive ethics, must justify its claims to validity with

strong arguments (Pless and Maak 2004, p. 133). This

approach defends the aspiration to symmetry for everyone

who participates in this dialogue (and in a community or

organisation) in which force, coercion and imposition are

unacceptable (Apel 1988; Habermas 1991; Böhler 1998;

Ulrich 1993).

In line with Pless and Maak’s (2004) proposal to create

an inclusive diversity culture, and inspired by Bird’s ‘‘good

conversation’’ proposal (1996) and Steinmann and Scher-

er’s concept of the culture of argumentation (1998), we

propose a series of initiatives, practices and recommenda-

tions that will help to create a culture of intercultural

respect in firms. In essence, the aim of diversity manage-

ment is to change the organisation’s culture (Krell and

Sieben 2011, p. 165) in the following ways:

5 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21025332 (Accessed 20th July

2015). 6 Global Compact (2009, p. 28).

7 Agromartin has undertaken various initiatives to promote equality,

diversity and intercultural integration. These include holding events

with workers in their leisure time, celebrating the most representative

festivities of each culture and a prayer room provided by the workers.

Cultural Diversity in Business: A Critical Reflection… 691

123

– Sensitising and training all employees in cultural

diversity learning to live harmoniously with differences

requiresthe ability to identify and value those differences

and the acquisition of certain competences to manage

them. Ranging from Nussbaum’s more academic pro-

posal—‘‘cultivating our humanity in a complex, inter-

locking world involves understanding the ways in which

common needs and aims are differently realized in

different circumstances’’ (1997, p. 10)—to more prag-

matic management-oriented proposals, such as those of

Thomas and Inkson (2003), Pless and Maak (2004), Cox

(2001), Ortlieb and Sieben (2013) and Riechard et al.

(2015) all recognise the importance of training in

diversity management. Introducing the subject of cul-

tural diversity transversally through periodic training

could be a good way to ensure that employees are aware

of the benefits of teamwork and, above all, of the

integration of intercultural teams in businesses. Man-

agers’ transcultural competencies are best developed

through training (Moon and Woollians 2000).

– Creating forums for dialogue and encounters with

different cultures a physical and temporal space for

exchanging visions, ideas and beliefs may not only

increase understanding of other cultures but may also

strengthen the affective links among workers. These

forums must be more than merely a space where any

disagreements or clashes of cultural origin are resolved.

Conflict is a basic life experience and is the pragmatic

basis of dialogue, as the Erlangen School recognises

(Lorenzen 1989; Steinmann and Löhr 1994). Conflict is

present and is often positive, as it can serve as a learning

experience. Therefore, a neutral space in which to resolve

conflicts that stem from cultural diversity can provide an

opportunity for learning and cohesion.

– Creating spaces for meditation and prayer given that

the religious identity and spiritual dimension of

human beings has a significant impact on their

behaviour and quality of life—it is a source of

meaning of life (Nussbaum 2008)—it would be a

good idea to create spaces for different religious

practices to offer people peaceful surroundings for

meditation and prayer. Taking employees’ religious

inclinations into account is a very important step

towards the satisfactory management of cultural

diversity. As with other measures listed here, this

measure has implications on various levels. First, it

provides workers with a private space within the

organisation itself in which they are able to carry out

their religious practices. Second, it serves to raise

awareness among the rest of the staff, making it clear

that respect and recognition of its employees’ prac-

tices and beliefs are important for the organisation.

Table 3 Models of diversity management and their relationship to the philosophical concepts of tolerance and respect

Implicit ideological

background

Models of diversity management

Cox (1991,

1993)

Thomas and Ely

(1996)

Ortlieb and Sieben (2013) Current article

Indifference Monolithic

organisation

Exclusion

Adding value through

mere labour

Indifference

Tolerance Plural

organisation

Discrimination

and fairness

Access and

legitimacy

Anti-discrimination

Adding value through

ethnic background

Tolerance company

Asymmetry (majorities/minorities)

Descriptive perspective

Productivity motivation

Business first

Assimilation or reduction of diversity

Rules for accommodating diversity (quotas and

affirmative actions)

Respect Multicultural

organisation

Integration and

learning

Learning Respect company

Aspiration to symmetry between people with

different cultural background

Normative perspective

Justice motivation

People first

Maintenance of diversity and processes for

integration

Conditions for dialogue

Source own work based on Ortlieb and Sieben (2013) and Cantle (2012)

692 J. F. Lozano, T. Escrich

123

– Planning the work calendar, taking into account the

festivities of other cultures typical behaviour in intol-

erant cultures is that they do not pay attention or show

any interest in minorities and do not take them into

account when organising life in common. Regarding

issues such as timetabling, work calendar and planning,

minorities are often ignored or, in the best cases,

‘‘exceptions’’ are permitted. Taking into account

employees’ cultural festivities, such as the Jewish

New Year, the Muslim feast to mark the end of fasting

or the observance of Saturday by Adventists, not only

solves problems of absenteeism but also shows these

employees respect.

– Addressing clothing habits and the specific food

requirements in the company canteen in most cases,

such requirements involve little effort and minimal

logistics on the part of the organisation and mean a

great deal to the people who work at a firm.

– Regulating the presence of religious symbols in shared

spaces as Hofstede et al. (2010) rightly acknowledge,

symbols are an integral and defining aspect of a culture,

and for religious and cultural traditions, certain sym-

bols, items of clothing and rituals are very important.

Regulating this issue is difficult and controversial, and

guidelines need to be drawn up to avoid conflict and

offence. As we have presented elsewhere (González

et al. 2009; Lozano et al. 2008), the guidelines for such

regulations are based on prioritising individual rights

over collective rights, and they specify two criteria: not

permitting cultural expressions that represent an

explicit offence or incitement to violence and discrim-

ination towards the other culture and not limiting

freedom of expression of beliefs or ideologies which,

although irrational, do not attack people’s dignity.

The effective development of the ideology of respect in

the positive sense (Geuss 1981) requires starting with a rig-

orous reflection on the concept itself and its practical

implications for managing cultural diversity in firms. Further

work must be done, however, to propose actions and specific

orientations to go from words to deeds and to contribute

towards the creation of a fairer business and society. It is a

difficult task and, there is a long road ahead, but it is essential

if we continue to aspire to the Kantian idea of respect for

people as a goal in itself (Kant 1785; Hill 2000).

Conclusion

Our ideas about others and the world condition our beha-

viour. The ideology of respect that we have presented here

can have a real impact on cultural diversity management in

organisations.

The concept of ideology has multiple interpretations; we

have opted for the positive interpretation that views it as

the creation of ideas and practices that improve human

coexistence. On this basis, our proposed ideology of

respect must begin with a critical analysis of the concept of

tolerance. This concept has dominated the theory of

political philosophy and proposals for the political organ-

isation of cultural diversity for the last 300 years. In con-

trast to what we have identified as the limitations of

tolerance, we have argued in this article for a concept of

respect, based on discursive ethics, to promote intercultural

coexistence that helps to build a fairer society.

Our conclusion is that the different strategies for

managing cultural diversity reflect different ideologies.

Where the ideology of tolerance manifests a strategic interest

in cultural diversity and tries to deal with cultural diversity in

the interest of the company, the ideology of respect responds

to moral motives and to a conviction that human dignity and

recognition goes before profits. In the same way the con-

ception of the company–society relationship is different.

From an ideology of tolerance the idea is that companies are

independent organisations which operate in a society and try

to resist the interference of social phenomena; the ideology

of respect considers that companies are a substantial part of

society and that they have to respond to social challenges

with moral legitimacy. This is an integrative view where

cultural diversities are managed according to ethical rather

than merely profit-seeking criteria.

The difference between tolerance and respect is not a

theoretical, second-order issue; rather, it has real and

specific implications for life in organisations. Cultural

diversity management in firms requires serious normative

reflection on legitimate cultural practices and actions that

foster dialogue between different traditions and respond to

the moral imperative of respect for people’s dignity. We

have some good examples and interesting experiences, but

there is still much to do to make progress in this area of

increasing importance.

References

Althusser, L. (1969). Ideologı́a y aparatos ideológicos de estado

[Ideology and ideological state apparatuses]. México: Editorial

S. XXI.

Apel, K. (1988). Diskurs und Verantwortung [Discourse and respon-

sibility]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Managing across borders: The

transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bartolomé, M., & Cabrera, F. (2003). Sociedad multicultural y

ciudadanı́a: Hacia una sociedad y ciudadanı́a intercultural

[Multicultural society and citizenship: Towards an intercultural

society and citizenship]. Revista de educación, n8 extraordinario de 2003, 2003, 33–56.

Cultural Diversity in Business: A Critical Reflection… 693

123

Bird, B. Fr. (1996). The muted conscience: Moral silence and the

practice of ethics in business. London: Quorum Books.

Böhler, D. (1998). Dialogbezogene (Unternehmens-) Ethik versus

kulturalistische (Unternehemens-) Strategik. Besteht eine Pflicht

zur universalen Dialogverantwortung? [Dialogue-related (busi-

ness) ethics versus culturalist (corporate) strategy: Is there an

obligation to universal dialogue responsibility?] In H. Stein-

mann, & A. G. Scherer (Eds.), Zwischen Universalismus und

Relativismus (pp. 126–178). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Cantle, T. (2012). Interculturalism: The new era of cohesion and

diversity. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Cortina, A. (1985). Razón comunicativa y responsabilidad solidaria

[Comunicative reason and solidarity responsability]. Salamanca:

Sı́gueme.

Cortina, A. (1993). Ética aplicada y democracia radical [Applied

ethics and radical democracy]. Madrid: Tecnos.

Cortina, A. (1994). Ética de la empresa [Companiés ethics]. Madrid:

Trotta.

Cortina, A. (1997). Ciudadanos del mundo: Hacia una teorı́a de la

ciudadanı́a [World citizenship: Towards a theory of citizenship].

Madrid: Alianza.

Cortina, A. (2007). Ética de la razón cordial [Ethic of cordial reason].

Oviedo: Ediciones Nobel.

Cox, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Man-

agement Executive, 5(3), 34–47.

Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research

and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Cox, T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy

for capturing the power of diversity. University of Michigan

business school management series. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Cox, T., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implica-

tions for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Manage-

ment Executive, 5(3), 45–56.

Dillon, R. S. (2007). Respect: A philosophical perspective. Gruppen-

dynamik und Organizationsberatung, 38(2), 01–212.

Dillon, R. S. (2014). Respect. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved July, 2015, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/

respect/.

Eccleshall, R., Geoghegan, V., Jay, R., & Wilford, R. (1993).

Political ideologies. An introduction. London: Unwin Hyman.

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The

effects of diversity perspectives on workgroup processes and

outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273.

Escuela de Organización Industrial, EOI (2009). La gestión de la

diversidad en las empresas Españolas [Managing diversity in

Spanish companies].

European Commission. (2006). Recommendation of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on Key

Competences for Lifelong Learning, DO L 394 30 December

2006, Brussels (p. 10).

European Commission. (2013). Assessing diversity: Impact in busi-

ness. European Union Platform of Diversity Charters. Retrieved

July 27, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/events/hle-2013/

files/assessing_diversity2013_en.pdf.

Eurostat. (2015). Migration and migrant population statistics.

Retrieved July 27, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/

statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_

statistics#Migration_flows.

Fonseca, E. (1991). Beliefs in action: Economic philosophy and social

change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Forst, R. (2003). Toleranz im Konflikt [Tolerance in conflict].

Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 175–184.

Fotaki, M., & Prasad, A. (2015). Questioning neoliberal capitalism

and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of

Management Learning and Education, 14(4), 556–575.

Franken, S. (2015). Personal: Diversity management. Wiesbaden:

Springer Gabler.

Freeden, M. (2003). Ideology: A very short introduction. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Fundación Bertelsmann. (2012). Gestión de la diversidad cultural en las

empresas [Managing cultural diversity in companies]. Barcelona.

Retrieved October 20, 2015, from http://www.clubsostenibilidad.

org/f_publicaciones/diversidad%20cultural.pdf.

Fundación Diversidad. (2013). Gestión global de la diversidad

cultural [Global management of cultural diversity]. Retrieved

October 20, 2015, from http://www.fundaciondiversidad.org/

descargas/informe_gestion_diversidad_cultural/Informe_Gestion_

Diversidad_Cultural.pdf.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic

Books.

Geuss, R. (1981). The idea of a critical theory: Habermas and the

Frankfurt School. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad managers’ theories are destroying good

management practices. Academy of Management Learning and

Education, 4, 75–91.

Gilbert, J. A., Stead, B. A., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1999). Diversity

management: A new organizational paradigm. Journal of

Business Ethics, 21, 61–76.

Giménez, C. (1996). La integración de los inmigrantes y la

interculturalidad [Immigrants’ integration and interculturality].

Arbor CLIV, 607, 119–149.

Giménez, C. (2003). Pluralismo, multiculturalismo e interculturali- dad: Propuesta de clarificación y apuntes educativos [Pluralism,

multiculturalism and interculturalism: Proposal for clarification

and educational notes]. Revista de Educación y Futuro, 8, 2003.

Glinow, M., Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. (2004). Can we talk and

should we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams.

Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 578–592.

González, E., Lozano, F., & Pérez, P. (2009). Beyond the conflict:

Religion in the public sphere and deliberative democracy. Res

Pública, 15, 251–267.

Gualda, E. (2001). Integración social de los inmigrantes y modelos

teóricos que la explican: Los procesos de integración social de

la primera generación de ‘‘Gastarbeiter’’ Españoles en Alema-

nia [Social integration of immigrants and theoretical models:

Processes of social integration from the first immigrant gener-

ations in Germany ‘‘invited workers’’]. Universidad de Huelva.

Gutmann, A. (1992). Introduction. In C. H. Taylor (Ed.), Multicul-

turalism and the politics of recognition (pp. 3–24). Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Habermas, J. (1963). Technik und Wissenschaft als ‘‘Ideologie’’

[Technic and science as ideology]. Frankfurt am Main:

Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns [Com-

municative action theory]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. (1983). Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln

[Moral conscience and communicative action]. Frankfurt am

Main: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. (1991). Erläuterungen zu Diskursethik [Discursive

ethics explanations]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. (2005). Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion [Between

naturalism and religion: Philosophical essays]. Frankfurt am

Main: Suhrkamp.

Hastedt, H. (2012). Toleranz [Tolerance]. Stuttgart: Reclam.

Hernández, D. M. (2010). Marcuse y Rawls sobre la tolerancia

[Marcuse and Rawls on tolerance]. Ciencia Polı́tica, 10,

120–135.

694 J. F. Lozano, T. Escrich

123

Hill, T. E., Jr. (2000). Respect, pluralism, and justice: Kantian

perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hofmann, R. (2012). Gesellschaftstheoretische Grundlagen für einen

reflexiven und inklusiven Umgang mit Diversitäten in Organi-

zationen [Society’s theoretical basis for a reflective and inclusive

dealing with diversities in organizations]. In R. Bendl, E.

Hanappi-Egger, & R. Hofmann (Eds.), Diversität und Diver-

sitätsmanagement (pp. 23–61). Wien: Facultas Verlag.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and

Organizations. Software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation

and its importance for survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Instituto Iberoamericano de Derechos Humanos (IIDH). (2009).

Multiculturalidad e Interculturalidad en el ámbito educativo.

San José: Experiencias de paı́ses latinoamericanos.

Kant, I. (1785 [1974]). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten

[Groundwork on the metaphysics of morals]. Frankfurt:

Suhrkamp.

Kochan, T., et al. (2003). The effects of diversity business perfor-

mance: Report of the Diversity Research Network. Human

Resource Management, 1(42, Spring), 3–21.

Köpple, P. (2014). Diversity Management in Deutschland: Bench-

mark 2014. Strategie oder Alibi [Diversity Management in

Germany. Benchmark 2014. Strategy or Alibi?]. Retrieved

March 10, 2016, from http://www.charta-der-vielfalt.de/filead

min/user_upload/beispieldateien/Downloads/2014-10-22_Bench

mark.pdf.

Krell, G. (2011). Grundlegend: Ecksteine, Gleichstellungscontrolling,

Verständnis und Verhältnis von Gender und Diversity [Basic:

cornerstones, equality controlling, understanding and the rela-

tionship between gender and diversity]. In G. Krell, R. Ortlieb, &

B. Sieben (2011, 6 a Auflage, Eds.), Chancengleichkeit durch

Personalpolitik. Gleichstellung von Frauen und Männern in

Unternehmen und Verwaltungen (pp. 3–24). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Krell, G., & Sieben, B. (2011). Diversity management: Chancegle-

ichheit für alle und auch als Wettbewerbsvortail [Diversity

management: Equality of opportunities for all and a competitive

advantage]. In G. Krell, R. Ortlieb, & B. Sieben (2011, 6 a

Auflage, Eds.), Chancengleichkeit durch Personalpolitik. Gle-

ichstellung von Frauen und Männern in Unternehmen und

Verwaltungen (pp. 155–174). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of

minority rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Levey, G. B. (2012). Interculturalism vs. multiculturalism: A

distinction without difference? Journal of Intercultural Studies,

33(2), 217–224.

Liff, S. (1999). Diversity and equal opportunities: Room for a

constructive compromise? Human Resource Management Jour-

nal, 9(1), 65–75.

Locke, J. (1667). A letter concerning toleration. Retrieved November

15, 2013, from http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/

3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf.

Lorenzen, P. (1989). Philosophische Fundierungsprobleme einer

Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik [Philosophy’s foundational

problems of business and economic ethics]. In H. Steinmann, &

A. Löhr (Eds.), Unternehmensethik. Stuttgart: Poeschel.

Lozano, J. F., Pérez, P. J., & Gonzalez, E. (2008). The limits of

tolerance in public universities. Politics in Central Europe, 4,

9–25.

Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia. London: Kegan Paul and

Co.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1846). The German ideology. London:

Lawrence and Wishart.

McKenzie, R., & Forde, C. (2009). The rhetoric of the ‘‘good worker’’

versus the realities of employers’ use and the experiences of

migrant workers. Work, Employment and Society, 23(I),

142–159.

Meer, N., & Modood, T. (2011). How does interculturalism contrast

with multiculturalism? Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(2),

175–196.

Melé, D., & Sánchez, C. (2013). Cultural diversity and universal

ethics in a global world. Journal of Business Ethics, 116,

681–687.

Mill, J. St. (1859). On liberty. London: Parker and Son.

Moon, C. J., & Woollians, P. (2000). Managing cross-cultural

business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 105–115.

Moorthy, R. S., et al. (1998). Uncompromising integrity: Motorola’s

global challenge. Schaumburg, IL: Motorola University Press.

Neves, J., & Melé, D. (2013). Managing ethically cultural diversity:

Learning from Thomas Aquinas. Journal of Business Ethics,

116, 769–780.

Noon, M. (2007). The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for

ethnic minorities. Work, Employment and Society, 21(4),

773–784.

Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity: In defense of reform in

liberal education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2008). Liberty of conscience: In defense of America’s

tradition of religious equality. New York: Basic Books.

Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the

humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Observatorio Español del Racismo y la Xenofobia. (2011). Guı́a para

la gestión de la diversidad en entorno profesionales [Guide for

managing diversity in professional contexts]. Madrid.

OECD. (2014). International Migration Outlook. OECD. Retreived

March 10, 2016, from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-

issues-migration-health/international-migration-outlook-2014_

migr_outlook-2014-en.

OECD. (2015). International migration database. OECD, Stat.

Retrieved July 27, 2015, from https://stats.oecd.org/Index.

aspx?DataSetCode=MIG.

Ortlieb, R., & Sieben, B. (2011). Frauen mit Migrationshintergrund:

Zwei soziale Kategorien im Fokus der Personalforschung und–

praxis [Women with migration backgrounds: Two social cate-

gories from the personal research and practice focus]. In G.

Krell, R. Ortlieb, & B. Sieben (2011, 6 a

Auflage, Eds.),

Chancengleichkeit durch Personalpolitik. Gleichstellung von

Frauen und Männern in Unternehmen und Verwaltungen (pp.

231–238). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Ortlieb, R., & Sieben, B. (2013). Diversity strategies and business

logic: Why do companies employ ethnic minorities? Group and

Organization Management, 38(4), 480–511.

Ortlieb, R., Sieben, B., & Sichtmann, C. (2014). Assigning migrants

to customer contact jobs: A context-specific exploration of the

business case for diversity. Journal of Business Ethics, 8,

249–273.

Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture:

Principles, processes and practices. Journal of Business Ethics,

54, 129–147.

Rawls, J. (1971). Theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia Univer-

sity Press.

Rawls, J. (2002). The law of people. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

Riechard, R. J., Serrano, S. A., Condren, M., Wilder, N., Dollwet, M.,

& Wang, W. (2015). Engagement in cultural trigger events in the

development of cultural competence. Academy of Management

Learning and Education, 14(4), 461–481.

Rühl, M. (2011). Praxisbeispiel Lufthansa: Diversity – Argumente,

Strategie, Massnahmen [Examples from the Lufthansa praxis:

Diversity—Argument, strategies and measures]. In G. Krell, R.

Ortlieb, & B. Sieben (2011, 6 a Auflage, Eds.), Chancengleichkeit

durch Personalpolitik. Gleichstellung von Frauen und Männern

Cultural Diversity in Business: A Critical Reflection… 695

123

in Unternehmen und Verwaltungen (pp. 189–192). Wiesbaden:

Gabler.

Salazar, M. J. (2009). Multiculturalidad e interculturalidad en el

ámbito educativo: Experiencias en paı́ses latinoamericanos

[Multiculturality and interculturality in education: Experiences

from Latin American countries]. San José: Instituto Interamer-

icano de Derechos Humanos.

Searchlight Educational Trust. (2011). Fear and Hope. The new

politics of identity. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www.

fearandhope.org.uk/2011-report/.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. New

York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Sennett, R. (2004). Respect in a world of inequality. London: W.

W. Norton and Company.

Shen, J., Chanda, A., D’Netto, B., & Monga, M. (2015). Managing

diversity through human resource management: An international

perspective and conceptual framework. The International Jour-

nal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 235–251.

Statista. (2015). Retrieved October 20, 2015, from http://de.statista.

com/statistik/daten/studie/76095/umfrage/asylantraege-insgesamt-

in-deutschland-seit-1995/.

Steinmann, H., & Löhr, A. (1994). Grundlagen der Unternehmen-

sethik [Foundations of business ethics]. Stuttgart: Schaffer

Poeschel.

Steinmann, H., & Scherer, A. G. (1998). Zwischen Universalismus

und Relativismus [Between universalisms and relativism].

Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Taylor, C. H. (1992). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann

(Ed.), Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Therborn, G. (1980). The ideology of power and the power of

ideology. London: Verso Editions and NBL.

Thomas, D., & Ely, R. E. (1996). Making differences matter: A new

paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74,

79–90.

Thomas, D., & Inkson, K. (2003). Cultural intelligence: People Skills

for global business (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers.

Ulrich, P. (1993). Transformation der ökonomische Vernunft [Trans-

formation of the economical reason]. Bern: Haupt Verlag.

Ulrich, P. (1997). Integrative Wirtschaftsethik [Integrative economic

ethics]. Stuttgart: Haupt Verlag; Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press.

Ulrich, P., & Fluri, E. (1992). Management. Bern: Haupt Verlag.

UN Global Compact Office, UNAOC. (2009). Doing business in a

multicultural world: Challenges and opportunities. Retrieved

December 11, 2014, from https://www.unglobalcompact.org/

docs/issues_doc/Peace_and_Business/Doing_Business_in_a_Mul

ticultural_World.pdf.

UNDP. (2004). Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world. Retrieved

April 15, 2014, from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/

reports/265/hdr_2004_complete.pdf.

UNESCO. (2001). Universal declaration on cultural diversity.

Retrieved April 26, 2014, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/

images/0012/001271/127162e.pdf.

United Nations. (2009). Principles for responsible management

education. Retrieved April 5, 2014, from http://www.unprme.

org/index.php.

Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2002). Ethics codes and profes-

sionals’ tolerance of societal diversity. Journal of Business

Ethics, 40, 301–312.

Villorio, L. (2007 [1985]). El concepto de ideologı́a [The concept of

ideology]. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Voltaire. (1763). Treatise on tolerance on the occasion of the death of

Jean Calas. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www.

constitution.org/volt/tolerance.htm.

Von Humboldt, W. (1792). Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Gränzen der

Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen [Ideas to attempt to define

the limits of the effectiveness of the state]. Breslau: Trewendt.

Walzer, M. (1997). On toleration. London: Yale University Press.

Zima, P. V. (1989). Ideologie und Theorie. Eine Diskurskritik

[Ideology and theory. A discursive critic]. Tübingen: Franke

Verlag.

Zizeck, S. (2013). Ein Plädoyer Für die Intoleranz [A plea for

intolerance]. Wien: Passagen Verlag.

696 J. F. Lozano, T. Escrich

123

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.