1
What is going on?
Inquiries into the contradictions of leading cultural diversity
Introduction
Due to increased workforce mobility, migration and internationalisation of education curricula, cultural differences of employees are getting more common in organisations. Ever more, diversity is viewed as a reality and a potential for boosting organisational performance. Organisations appoint diversity managers who are not only dealing with differences linked to the classic categories of diversity management (such as gender, profession, physical ability, race), but also with national culture diversity (expatriates, foreign talents, international client portfolio, etc.). The management of differences is now commonly perceived in the corporate environment as a part of Human Resource Management and leadership development. It unites under the label ‘cultural diversity management’ what used to be seen separately as cross-cultural management and diversity management. We adopt this terminology in this research proposal.
In academia alike, a recent tendency indicates a convergence between the two separate streams of diversity and cross-cultural management research (see Mor Barak, 2011; Holden et al. forth.; Calás et al; 2010). Our research team builds precisely on these two streams that we experience as complementary in their expertises. The streams meet on the fundamental issues that they want to deal with, that is: What are (cultural) differences and how can they be addressed?
Leading cultural differences and diversity in large organisations is quite a successful theme today and rests on well established theoretical and empirical tools and models to leverage this cultural diversity (e.g., Page, 2007; DiStefano, et al. 2000). For example, the successful management of diversity reduces employee turnover intensions (Stewart et al. 2010), increases innovative performances of organisations (Østergaard et al. 2011) and team performance (Homan et al. 2008). Leadership is closely linked to leveraging cultural diversity for organisation’s benefit (e.g., Shin et al., 2012; Østergaard et al. 2011), and promoted either with ‘global leadership’ or an emphasis on inclusive and transformative leadership (Mendenhall et al. 2013; Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Kearney & Gebert, 2009).
Yet, some researchers have recently advanced evidence that the management of differences is not as successful as it seems, despite scholars and practitioners’ best intensions. These researchers are preoccupied with understanding power structures in organisations and processes of social change, in the spirit of ‘critical management studies’. They point to empirical evidences (e.g. Omanović, 2013; Embrick, 2011; Zanoni & Janssens, 2004) and theoretical considerations (e.g., Noon, 2007; Ghorashi & Sabelis, 2013; van Dijk et al. 2012) indicating that the definition and management of differences are done in ways that can reproduce power inequalities and thus undermine the entire purpose of diversity and cross- cultural management. This means that the way cultural diversity management addresses its own fundamental questions and endeavour is said to undermine its raison d’être. Worse, some argue that cross-cultural and diversity management are dehumanising employees and thus, are unethical (Rodes & Westwood, 2007; Muhr, 2008).
2 How is this possible? We aim to investigate this state of affairs, this interconnection between an active leadership of cultural diversity and the alleged reproduction of inequalities and unethical practices. How can cultural diversity management theories and practices contribute to something which is so opposite to their endeavour?
The problems
The problem of ‘defining’ differences...
The question of difference is central to the diversity and cross-cultural management literatures (e.g. Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000; Holvino & Kamp, 2009; Hofstede, 1980; Jack &
Westwood, 2009) since they undertake to promote models raising awareness of differences between employees, so that these differences can be best addressed.
In cross-cultural management research, the most influential works have defined differences in terms of national culture, thus, addressing differences as nation-based, essentialist and stable (see Romani et al. 2013; Primecz et al. 2009). The problem is that it is difficult to acknowledge internal cultural diversity of nations (McSweeney, 2009) and second, individuals’ cultural identity tends to be essentialised as the average score of their country on cultural dimensions. Another problem is the definition of differences using Western types of categorisations (Lowe, 2001) yet presenting them as ‘objective’ and ‘scientific’ (Ailon, 2008). As critical researchers have shown, such Western defined ‘objectivity’ tend to rely on colonial discourses (Kwek, 2003; Fougère & Moulettes, 2011; Westwood, 2006), even so in Sweden (see Muhr & Salem, 2013; Kalonaityte, 2010) and this leads to dichotomies, exclusion and denigration of cultural differences. In practice, similar definitions of cultural differences are done using essentialisation and stereotyping by employees so that power inequalities are hidden or justified under the labels of cultural differences or the promotion of intercultural management (Ybema & Byun, 2009; Mahadevan, 2011).
Diversity management has been facing similar dilemmas because defining ‘difference’ has important implications. For Thomas (1990) diversity is to be perceived in all the similarities and differences among organisational members. For Nkomo and Cox (1996) this focus on individual differences results in treating all kind of differences as if they were the same and thus occults social inequalities and unequal power relations (see also Tatli, 2011). Yet, as Holvino and Kamp (2009) point out, stressing differences between groups (e.g. genders) can lead to collective categorizations that erase individual differences and reinforce social stereotypes. In addition, when defining differences between groups, it appears that the groups are not compared between them, but against an implicit reference: the white, heterosexual, western, middle/upper class able men (Zanoni et al. 2010; Muhr & Sullivan, 2013). In practice alike, the definition of ‘difference’ is also problematic as it uses essentialist categories that reflect and reproduce existing managerial practices underlying power relations (Zanoni & Janssens, 2004; Holgersson, 2013). Likewise, the way managers define diversity in increasingly individualistic terms (Embrick, 2011; Özbilgin & Tatli, 2011) impacts diversity practices in organisations and can in fact, lead to close the door to diversity (Omanović, 2013).
3 Is diversity management not humanist?
Cross-cultural and diversity management have in common ideals of humanism, tolerance of cultural differences, increased understanding, inclusion and non-discrimination (Lorbiecki and Jack, 2000; Romani and Szkudlarek, 2013), yet, critical scholars blame these streams for dehumanising employees.
For many, leading and successfully managing cultural diversity is commonly linked to a
‘business case’, in other words, a financial benefit for organisations. The business case for cultural diversity has become a dominant rhetoric in diversity management and cross- cultural management alike (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000; Holvino & Kamp, 2009; Ghorashi &
Sabelis, 2013; Trompenaars, 1993; Dahlén, 1997). The problem is that scholars have demonstrated that the business case supports positions that have clear moral limitations (Johns et al. 2012; van Dijk et al, 2012). Some argue that the business case is dehumanising, because it supports diversity only if and as long as it drives to a profit. It fosters a utilitarian (and potentially manipulative) logic in employees’ relationship (Noon, 2007). In the business case, employee’s diversity is a means to an end, thereby violating Kant’s humanist dictum that people ought not to be treated as a means (Bowie, 1999).
Adding to these critiques, researchers adopting the ideas of Lévinas claim that cultural diversity management is unethical because it is dehumanising. For Lévinas, ethics unfolds in our relationship with the Other. Our capacity to open ourselves toward the Other, in a way that is respectful and unconditional, defines not only ethical relationships, but also, our capacity to be human (Lévinas, 1961; 1974). Our relationship with the Other, whose difference we approach respectfully, is thus at the core of our humanity.
In cross-cultural management, Rhodes and Westwood (2007) demonstrate the ethical limitation of cross-cultural management’s endeavour to develop knowledge about cultural differences, thus knowledge about ‘Others’, rather than knowledge about a respectful relationship with Others. The same can be said about the categories used to define employees in diversity management (Muhr, 2008; Ostendorp & Steyaert, 2009). In brief, it seems that the endeavour to define an Other, to develop categories (of differences) to relate to the Other is precisely what Lévinas’ philosophy of ethics is telling us is disrespectful, unethical, and dehumanising.
To sum up the limitations pointed by critical management studies to cultural diversity management, it becomes clear that defining difference, which is core to leading cultural diversity, is more than a theoretical matter or a practitioner’s challenge; it is an ethical issue because it impacts our relationship to the Other. How can cultural diversity leadership be done in an ethical way, that is, focussing on a respectful and responsible relationship with an Other -considered for her otherness, rather than for her differences? In addition, we learn that leading cultural diversity in organisation with solely the business case in mind is not only dehumanising but also unethical. What can then be acceptable rhetorics for cultural diversity management in an organisational environment? These two questions stimulate our research endeavour.
Aims and purpose of the research project
4 The overall aim of this research project is to contribute to ethical practices in the leadership of employees’ cultural diversity, by addressing the theoretical, practical and ethical challenges that cross-cultural and diversity management are facing.
Our specific objective is to contribute to theory development that will inspire researchers and practitioners. Theory development will address the ethical limitations of existing frameworks used in cultural diversity management, in their definition of difference and the use of business case rhetoric. By investigating ‘what is going on’ in organisations actively involved in the leadership of cultural diversity, we aim to contribute to a better understanding of how current claims of dehumanisation and ethical limitations can be addressed.
In the spirit of feminist organisation research entangling theoretical development and emancipation, we build on the constructive tradition of critical studies (Carr, 2006) to adopt critical performativity (Spicer et al. 2009) in a dialogue between research streams and their critiques, between researchers and practitioners. Critical performativity posits that critique must engage with theory and practice to contribute to change. By voicing and articulating alternative theories and lines of actions, it aims for active interventions into both theory development and managerial discourses and practices.
Theoretical framework and research questions
Our research team’s positioning is inscribed in critical management (e.g. Alvesson &
Willmott, 2012) and gender studies (e.g. Acker, 2006) with a shared focus on cross-cultural and diversity management, ethics and leadership (e.g., Muhr, 2008; 2011; Muhr & Salem, 2013; Wahl, Holgersson et al., 2012; Tienari, Søderberg, Holgersson & Vaara, 2005; Romani
& Szkudlarek, 2013; Primecz, Romani and Sackmann, 2011).
This project’s aim at critical performativity will place theoretical and empirical investigations in interplay. We will (a) theoretically examine how differences can be ‘defined’ in respectful ways and on which moral and ethical foundations can the leadership of cultural diversity stand. In cross-cultural and diversity management, the work by Lévinas has already inspired critiques (Rhodes & Westwood, 2007; Muhr, 2008). Muhr (2008) stresses that if one focuses on otherness (rather than differences), on disconnections and interruptions, otherness is never captured and we enter into an ethical (respectful) relationship with this other person.
We will further investigate how this can be done with the works by Lévinas (e.g, 1972, 1981) but also those of Derrida (e.g., 1967) and their application in the fields of cultural diversity (e.g., Pilhofer, 2011; Lim, 2007). Our principal theoretical questioning will therefore be: How can the Others be defined in respectful ways that enables an ethical relationship with them?
We will (b) empirically investigate how employees and leaders define differences and how they make sense of and act upon leading cultural diversity. In particular, we will focus on employees’ and leaders’ expectations regarding cultural diversity management as this provides clues to current social norms and accepted practices (Muhr & Sullivan, 2013;
Lumby, 2009; Ostendorp & Steyaert, 2009). Our empirical investigation will explore how employees and leaders discursively construct cultural diversity in their interactions. How do they make sense and justify their choices for action, what are their expectations and how do
5 they act upon cultural diversity? This focus will highlight how leadership of cultural diversity is currently done and why it faces the limitations denounced by the critical scholars. Our empirical investigation will centre on the relationship that managers in leadership position have with their employees, as they play a key role in the implementation and the endorsement of cultural diversity practices (e.g. Ng & Sears, 2012; Shin et al, 2012). We will focus on leadership (thus on practices and interactions) rather than on individual leaders (Crevani et al, 2010). Our principal empirical questioning will therefore be: How is cultural diversity leadership done? What rhetoric and cognitive logics do leaders and employees base their actions upon?
Investigation methods and study design
Our investigation methods are inspired by critical discourse analyses (e.g. van Dijk, 1997;
Wodak and Meyer, 2009) and a critical take on sense-making studies (see Jørgensen et al 2012; Weick, 1995) using in-depth qualitative methods.
Sense-making and discourse analysis are investigation intensive methods. Senior Researcher Laurence Romani and one or two PhD students will be full-time investigators using methods inspired by ethnography (see e.g. Lauring, 2009). We will select two organisations with a different angle on diversity (e.g., diversity defined on the basis of individual or group differences), in order to investigate cultural diversity leadership with these two views on diversity that are commonly encountered in ‘pro-diversity’ companies (see Lumby, 2009).
Empirical data will be based on extended participant observations, participation in training and leadership development activities, with semi-structured and unstructured interviews, in the exploration of both practices and discourses on leading cultural diversity at the Human Resource Management (HRM) level as well as medium management levels in both organisations.
Associate Prof. Sara Louise Muhr (Lund University and Copenhagen Business School -CBS) and Associate Prof. Charlotte Holgersson (Royal Institute of Technology -KTH) will conduct numerous complementary interviews in several other ‘pro-diversity’ organizations (e.g., in consulting, recruitment, transport and food & beverage) at the HRM and managerial levels.
This will broaden our data source; increase our understanding of common discourses and takes on leading cultural diversity, and place the core of the empirical data into perspective.
The project will be based at the Centre for Advanced Studies in Leadership, Stockholm School of Economics.
Unique contributions and expected outcomes
The theoretical positioning of our team is a unique strength. We are combining research streams in diversity and cross-cultural management with a focus on leadership, to which we add our expertise in philosophy and business ethics. Our first theoretical contribution will come from the interplay (see Romani, 2010; Romani et al, 2011) between the different literatures we build on. We believe that a focus on respect and how to reach this respect could be a possible framework for the management of cultural diversity. This theoretical
6 development will contribute to the literatures on diversity management, cross-cultural management and business ethics.
Our second theoretical contribution will provide a better understanding of whether and why current practices in the leadership of cultural diversity are unethical and dehumanising.
Currently, critical scholars are strong in denouncing these limitations, but are short of explanations. Our critical performative approach will help us develop explanations of the origins of such limitations and will be a first step in the direction of addressing them successfully.
The most important empirical contribution of this project will articulate the rhetoric, discourses, meanings and expectations linked to current practices in the leadership of cultural diversity. This in-depth knowledge of how cultural diversity leadership is ‘done’ lead to our contribution to practitioners: the introduction of relevant critical-constructive questioning and the elaboration, together with them, of proposals to deal with identified issues. In sum, we will endeavour to attend to the ‘unfinished business of critical management studies’ (Spicer et al, 2009) and add to most critical management studies a dimension of performativity; in this case, contributing to a more ethical leadership of cultural diversity.
A selection of the team’s previous publications relevant for this project
Holgersson, C. (2013) Recruiting managing directors – doing homosociality. Gender,Work &
Organization. 20, 4, 454-466.
Wahl, A., C. Holgersson, P. Höök & S. Linghag (2011) Det ordnar sig. Teorier om organisation och kön. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Calás, M., C. Holgersson & L. Smircich (2009) 'Diversity Management'? Translation? Travel?
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 4, 349-351.
Tienari, J., A.-M. Söderberg, C. Holgersson & E. Vaara (2005) Gender and National Identity Constructions in the Cross Border Merger Context. Gender, Work & Organization. 12, 3, 217- 247.
Muhr, S.L. (2008) Othering Diversity – a Levinasian analysis of Diversity Management, International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 3(2), 176-189.
Muhr, S.L. (2011) ‘Caught in the Gendered Machine – on the Masculine and Feminine in Cyborg Leadership’, Gender, Work and Organization, 18(3), 337-357.
Muhr, S.L. & Salem, A. (2013): Spectres of colonialism: Illusionary equality and the forgetting of history in a Swedish organization, Management and Organizational History, 8(1), 62-76.
Muhr, S.L. & Sullivan, K. (2013): ”None so queer as folk”: Gendered Expectations and Transgressive Bodies in Leadership, Leadership, 9(3), 416-435.
7 Muhr, S.L.; Sørensen, B. & Vallentin, S. (Eds) (2010) Ethics and Organizational Practice – Questioning the Moral Foundations of Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Romani, L. (2010), Relating to the Other: paradigm interplay for cross-cultural management research, 2nd Ed, Saarbrücken, LAP publishing.
Romani, L. & Holgersson, C. (forthcoming 2014) Inclusive leadership for sustainable work practices, in L. Zander (Ed.) Research Handbook of Global Leadership: Making a difference, Edward Elgar.
Romani, L. & Szkudlarek, B. (2013), The Struggles of the Interculturalists: Professional Ethical Identity and Early Stages of Codes of Ethics Development, Journal of Business Ethics. Online first
Romani, L. Primecz, H. & Topçu, K (2011), “Paradigm interplay for theory development: a methodological example with the Kulturstandard method”, Organization Research Methods 14(3), 432-455.
Romani, L. Sackmann, S. & Primecz, H. (2011) “Culture and negotiated meanings: the value of meaning systems, re-interpretation and power for cross-cultural management”, in Primecz, H., Romani, L. and Sackmann, S (Eds.) Cross-Cultural Management in practice:
culture and negotiated meanings, Edward Elgar, 1-17.
References:
Acker, J. (2006) Class Questions. Feminist Answers. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ailon G. (2008), ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall: Culture’s Consequences in a value test of its own design’, Academy of Management Review, 33, 4, 885-904.
Alvesson, M & Willmott, H. (2012) Making sense of management, (2nd Ed), London, Sage.
Bowie, Norman E. (1999) Business Ethics. A Kantian perspective, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Calás, M. B.; Smircich, L.; Tienari, J. and Funck Ellehave, C. (2010) Editorial: Observing Globalized Capitalism: Gender and Ethnicity as an Entry Point, Gender, Work and Organization, 17(3), 243-247.
Carr A, (2006), “In the constructive tradition of being critical”, Critical Perspectives on International Business, 2, 2, 73-78.
Crevani, L.; Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2010) Leadership, not leaders: on the study of leadership as practices and interactions, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 77-86.
8 Dahlén, T. (1997). Among the Interculturalists: an emergent profession and its packaging of knowledge. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
Derrida J. (1967) De la Grammatologie. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
Distefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45-63.
Embrick, D. (2011) The diversity ideology in the business world: a new oppression for a new age, Critical Sociology, 37(5), 541-556.
Fougère M. and A. Moulettes (2011) ‘Disclaimers, dichotomies and disappearances in international textbooks: a postcolonial deconstruction’, Management Learning, 1-20.
Ghorashi, H. and Sabelis, I. (2013) Juggling differences and sameness: rethinking strategies for diversity in organizations, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 78-86.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Cultures' Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holden, N., Michailova, S. and Tietze, S. (forthcoming) The Routledge Companion to Cross- Cultural Management, Routledge.
Holgersson, C. (2013) Recruiting managing directors – doing homosociality. Gender,Work &
Organization. 20, 4, 454-466.
Holgersson, C (2011) When in Rome…? On multinational companies, codes of conduct and commercial sex, in A. Biricik and J. Hearn (Eds.), GEXcel Work in Progress Report, Linköping University press, 105-116.
Holvino, E., & Kamp, A (2009) Diversity management: are we moving in the right direction?
Reflections from both sides of the North Atlantic, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 395-403.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R.; Humphrey, S. E.; van Knippenberg, D.R.; Ilgen, D. R.; van Kleef, G.A. (2008) Facing differences with an open mind: openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups, Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1204-1222.
Jack, G. and Westwood, R. (2009), International and cross-cultural management studies: A postcolonial reading. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johns, N.; Green, A. & Powell, M. (2012) Diversity in the British NHS: the business versus the
‘moral’ case, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: an international journal, 31(8), 768-783.
Jørgensen, L., Jordan, S. and Mitterhofer, H. (2012) Sensemaking and discourse analyses in inter-organizational research: a review and suggested advances, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28(1), 107-120.
9 Kalonaityte, V. (2010) The case of Vanishing borders: theorizing diversity management as internal border control, Organization, 17(1), 31-52.
Kearney, E. and Gebert, D. (2009) Managing Diversity and Enhancing Team Outcomes: The Promise of Transformational Leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology; Vol. 94 Issue 1, p77- 89.
Kwek, D. (2003) Decolonizing and Re-Presenting Culture’s Consequences. A postcolonial critique of cross-cultural studies in management. In A. Prasad (Ed.), Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: a critical engagement, 121-146. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lauring, J. (2009) Managing cultural diversity and the process of knowledge sharing: a case from Denmark, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 385-394.
Lévinas, E. (1972/2003) Humanism of the Other, Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Lévinas, E. (1961) Totalité et Infini, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.
Lévinas, E. (1974) Autrement qu’être ou au-delà de l’essence. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.
Lévinas, E. (1981) Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, trans. A. Lingis. Pittsburgh, PA:
Duquesne University Press.
Lim, M. (2007) The ethics of alterity and the teaching of otherness, Business Ethics: a European Review, 16(3), 251-263.
Lorbiecki, A. and Jack, G. (2000), Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management, British Journal of Management, 11, 17-31.
Lumby, J. (2009) Leaders’ orientations to diversity: two cases from education, Leadership, 5(4): 423-446.
Lowe S. (2001) ‘In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king’, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 1, 3, 313-332.
Mahadevan, J. (2011) Engineering culture(s) across sites: Implications for cross-cultural management of emic meanings. In H. Primecz, L. Romani, & S. Sackmann (Eds.), Cross- cultural management in practice: Culture and negotiated meanings, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 89-100.
McSweeney B. (2009) ‘Dynamic diversity: variety and variations within countries’, Organization Studies, 30, 9, 933-957.
Mendenhall, M.E., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., Maznevski, M., Stevens, M.J., & Stahl, G.K.
(2013) Global leadership: Research, practice, and development. (2nd edition). London:
Routledge.
10 Mor Barak, M. E. (2011) Managing Diversity. Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace (second edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Muhr, S. L. (2011) Caught in the Gendered Machine – on the Masculine and Feminine in Cyborg Leadership, Gender, Work and Organization, 18 (3), 337-357.
Muhr, S. L. (2011) Diversity at work. En analyse af 39 danske virksomheders syn på diversitet, WOW Exenet, Lund Universitet and Vfactors.
Muhr, S.L. (2008) Othering Diversity – a Levinasian analysis of Diversity Management, International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 3(2), 176-189.
Muhr, S. L. and Salem, A. (2013): Spectres of colonialism: Illusionary equality and the forgetting of history in a Swedish organization, Management and Organizational History, 8(1), 62-76.
Muhr, S. L. and Sullivan, K. (2013): ”None so queer as folk”: Gendered Expectations and Transgressive Bodies in Leadership, Leadership, 9(3), 416-435..
Nishii, L. and Mayer, D. (2009) Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship, Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412-1426.
Ng, E.S and Sears, G.J. (2012) CEO leadership and the implementation of organizational diversity practices: the moderating effects of social values and age, Journal of Business Ethics¸105, 41-52.
Nkomo, S. M., & Cox, T. J. (1996). Diverse identities in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hary, &
W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies, London: Sage, 338-356
Noon, M. (2007), The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for ethnic minorities, Work Employment Society, 21: 773-784.
Omanović, V. (2013) Opening and closing the door to diversity: a dialectical. Analysis of the social production of diversity, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 87-103.
Ostendorp, A. and Steyaert, C. (2009) How different can differences be(come)?:
Interpretative repertoires of diversity concepts in Swiss-based organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 4, 374–384.
Østergaard, C. R.; Timmermans, B. and Kristinsson, K. (2011) Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation, Research Policy, 40:500- 509.
Özbilgin M and Tatli A (2011) Mapping out the field of equality and diversity: Rise of individualism and voluntarism. Human Relations, 64(9): 1229–1258.
11 Page, S. E. (2007). Making the difference: Applying a logic of diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 6-21.
Pilhofer, K (2011) Cultural Knowledge. A critical perspective on the concept as a foundation for respect for cultural differences, Hamburg, Diplomica Verlag.
Primecz, H; Romani, L. & Sackmann, S. (Eds.) (2011) Cross-cultural Management in practice:
culture and negotiated meanings, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Primecz, H., Romani, L. & Sackmann, S. A. (2009) Multiple perspectives in Cross-Cultural Management. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 9(3): 267-274.
Academy of Management Journal 43(2): 164–177.
Rhodes, C. and Westwood, R. (2007) ‘Letting Knowledge Go: Ethics and the Representation of the Other in the Practice of International and Cross-Cultural Management’, in C. Carter, S.R. Clegg , M. Kornberger, S. Laske and M. Mesner (Eds.) pp. 68-83, Business Ethics as Practice: Representation, Discourse and Performance, Edward Elgar.
Romani, L. (2010), Relating to the Other: paradigm interplay for cross-cultural management research, Second Edition, Saarbrücken, LAP publishing.
Romani, L., Szkudlarek, B. (2013), The Struggles of the Interculturalists: Professional Ethical Identity and Early Stages of Codes of Ethics Development, Journal of Business Ethics.
Romani, L. Primecz, H and Bell, R. (forthcoming 2013) There is nothing so practical as four good theories, in B. Gehrke and M.-T. Claes (Eds) Advanced Cross-Cultural Management:
developing deep intercultural competencies for a globalized world, Palgrave McMillan.
Romani, L., Primecz, H. and Topçu, K. (2011), Paradigm interplay for theory development: a methodological example with the Kulturstandard method, Organization Research Methods.
14(3), 432-455.
Shin, S. J.; Kim, T-Y; Lee, J-Y & Bian, L. (2012) Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity : a cross-level interaction, Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 197- 212.
Spicer, A; Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2009) Critical performativity: The unfinished business of critical management studies, Human Relations; 62, 537-560.
Stewart, R., Volpone, S.D.; Avery, D. And McKay, P. (2010) You support diversity, but are you ethical? Examining the interactive effects of diversity and ethical climate perceptions on turnover intensions, Journal of Business Ethics, 100:581-593.
Tatli A (2011) A multi-layered exploration of the diversity management field: Diversity discourses, practices and practitioners in the UK. British Journal of Management, 22(2): 238–
253.
12 Tienari, J., A.-M. Søderberg, C. Holgersson & E. Vaara (2005) Gender and National Identity Constructions in the Cross Border Merger Context. Gender, Work & Organization. 12, 3, 217- 247.
Thomas, R. R. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 2(2), 107-117.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Limited.
Van Dijk, H.; van Engen, M.; and Paauwe, J. (2012) Reframing the business case for diversity:
a value and virtues perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 73-84.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as structure and process, vol. 1, Sage, London.
Wahl, A., C. Holgersson, S. Linghag & K. Regnö (2012) Chefskap, jämställdhet och etik.
Brytting, T (red.) Chefsarbetets etik. Stockholm: SNS förlag.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Westwood, Robert (2006). ‘International Business and management studies as an orientalist discourse: a postcolonial critique’. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 2 (2), 91- 113.
Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage, London.
Ybema S.B. and H. Byun (2009) ‘Cultivating cultural differences in asymmetric power relations’, International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 9(3), 339–58.
Zanoni, P. and Janssens, M. (2004) Deconstructing Difference: The Rhetoric of Human Resource Managers’ Diversity Discourses, Organization Studies, 25(1), 55–74.
Zanoni, P.; Janssens, M.; Benschop, Y.; and Nkomo, S. (2010), Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: rethinking difference through critical perspectives, Organization, 17(1), 9-29.
