We conducted a qualitative interview study exploring the exclusion experiences of 130 highly qualified migrants in Germany and made a surprising discovery: Contrary to dominant narratives, our interviewees report only minimal instances of overt discrimination. At the same time, our data reveal the prevalence of subtler forms of exclusion, which recent research conceptualizes as microaggressions. Thus, our study underscores that the absence of overt discrimination does not equate to an inclusive environment. Next to revealing the relevance of microaggressions, we show how migrants experience them, why their experiences can differ, and how they react to them. Particularly, we find that the negative experience of microaggressions can be related to an undermined sense of belonging, entitlement, and inclusion in majority country and working contexts. We further disclose that the following dimensions affect migrants’ experiences of microaggressions: context, (first or second) generation, (non-)recognizability of foreign background, and cultural identity. By highlighting that microaggressions are crucial for understanding exclusion of highly qualified migrants and providing detailed information around experiences and reactions, this paper integrates and contributes to two growing discourses relevant to business ethics research: migration as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion. Based on our analysis, we further propose solutions that are pertinent for managers, employing organizations and societies at large in their efforts to create inclusive environments for migrants.
Research consistently highlights the negative effects of illegitimate tasks on both employees and organizations. However, limited attention has been given to whether and when illegitimate tasks may also elicit positive outcomes. In this research, we focus on unreasonable tasks, a key subtype of illegitimate tasks, and use the challenge-hindrance stressor framework (CHSF) to examine whether, when, and how such tasks generate both positive and negative effects. We argue that unreasonable tasks interact with distinct leadership styles to shape employees’ attributions, which subsequently lead to either positive or negative outcomes. Across two field studies, we find that under strong servant leadership, employees tend to attribute unreasonable tasks to leaders’ performance promotion motives, which foster growth-oriented behaviors such as task proactivity and work effort. In contrast, under high self-serving leadership, employees tend to attribute such tasks to leaders’ injury initiation motives, which elicit self-protective strategies such as expediency behavior. An experimental study provides causal evidence for these interactive effects of task characteristics and leadership styles on employees’ attributions. Overall, our findings indicate that the effects of unreasonable tasks, whether positive or negative, are contingent upon leadership styles. Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Workplace mistreatment carries severe negative consequences for targets. While observers have been positioned as a potential solution to such mistreatment, research suggests they may instead exacerbate targets’ experiences by reacting negatively toward them. In this paper, we investigate a critical but overlooked driver of these negative reactions: how observers perceive and react to targets’ responses to mistreatment. Integrating stigma theory with victim precipitation narratives, we propose and test a model wherein observers who perceive that targets have not taken action to address mistreatment negatively evaluate them. These negative evaluations heighten observers’ concerns about being seen as similar to the target, prompting reactions that signal distance from the target. This effect is lessened when observers perceive targets as having engaged in actions to address mistreatment. Our findings illuminate a troubling paradox: the very targets most in need of support from others are least likely to receive it. We discuss implications for theory and practice.
This review essay provides a reading of Maddy Janssens and Chris Steyaert’s On Practising Diversity. The essay begins by noting the surprising lack of discussion in our field at the intersection of diversity and ethics. This is becoming especially problematic as practices and philosophies associated diversity are questioned by leaders in large corporations and by politicians in office and aspirants. The essay and the reading of the book conclude with observations on the nature of resistance to enforced sameness and the closing of diverse spaces, pointing towards an imminent and urgent research agenda.
As AI systems increasingly mediate high-stakes organizational decisions, ethical concerns have largely focused on bias and fairness in algorithmic outcomes, with less attention to how these technologies reshape the moral capacities of decision-makers. This study develops moral deskilling as the gradual weakening of moral attention, stakeholder sensitivity, ethical reflexivity, responsibility-taking, and context-sensitive judgment through sustained engagement with AI-mediated decision systems. Drawing on a multi-case study of AI-supported procurement operations, and informed by a socio-material perspective, the study explains how moral capacities become narrowed or displaced through recurring interactions between system features and organizational practices. The findings identify four mutually reinforcing mechanisms: ethical delegation and cognitive offloading, the silencing of ethical reflexivity, fragmented and diffused accountability, and the narrowing of ethical attention through system-based evaluation architectures. The study distinguishes moral deskilling from general cognitive overreliance or reduced discretion and shows how routine deference, organizational norms, and technological configurations can weaken decision-makers’ capacity to recognise, deliberate about, and act upon ethically significant concerns. The findings highlight the need for AI governance, training, and system design that preserve ethical reflection, contestation, and responsibility-taking.
