Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Diversity : What Is It?

Diversity is not a new phenomenon, rather has always been present in societies. Any two people are diverse from each other, no matter how similar they may appear. Given that diversity has always been present in societies, it is arguable that diversity has also always been present in organisations [1]. An apparent increase in diversity in workforces today may be attributable to a number of factors, including, for example, globalisation , anti-discrimination legislation and changes in demographics [2–8]. Regardless of the reason for its presence, and organisational interest in the concept, in order to better understand what diversity means for organisations, the concept must first be understood.

Although ever-present, defining diversity is difficult. First, difficulties lie in the fact that diversity concerns both visible and invisible characteristics [8, 9], and can be considered subjective, meaning it is created by individuals who characterise others as similar or dissimilar to themselves [10]. Diversity can also be considered context dependant, as individuals cannot be defined as “different” in isolation, rather only when compared to others in their environment [9]. Diversity is also a relative term [9]. The relativity of diversity considers diversity indicators as ambiguous as, for example, two individuals may identify as female, but one may be more “feminine” than the other.

In the organisational context , Jackson and Joshi [6] develop the concept of diversity further by exploring workplace or work team diversity . In doing so, the concepts of Relations-Oriented Diversity , Task-Oriented Diversity , Readily Detected Diversity and Underlying Diversity were introduced. Relations-oriented diversity concerns attributes that are instrumental in shaping interpersonal relationships, but have no ostensible implications for the performance of tasks . These attributes include, gender , age and religion. Task-oriented diversity concerns attributes, such as for example, education level, experience and cognitive abilities, which do seem to have an implication for work task performance. Readily detected diversity concerns differences among team members on a number of characteristics which are relatively easily discernible, such as age or nationality. Underlying diversity, in contrast, concerns attributes which become evident through interaction, such as personality or attitudes [6].

It is important to note that while diversity studies traditionally focussed on diversity in terms of gender, ethnicity and culture , diversity encompasses many other differences , perhaps almost an infinite number [11]. Although difficult to define, a number of definitions of diversity exist. Joplin and Daus [12] offer a clear, simple, concise definition of the complex concept, proposing it to simply refer to all the ways in which people differ from each other. Although brief, this definition underscores that individuals can differ from each other in a multitude of ways.

Under a more workplace -oriented focus, Griffin and Moorhead [4: 31] define diversity as concerning:

The similarities and differences in such characteristics as age, gender, ethnic heritage, physical abilities and disabilities, race and sexual orientation among the employees of organizations.

However it is defined, diversity is a broad, complex concept that concerns every individual. Additionally, diversity in the workplace is considered to carry implications for management , and so must be managed. Consequently, diversity management is more fully discussed later in this chapter.

Benefits Associated with Diversity

Diversity in the workplace can offer organisations a number of potential benefits . According to a number of authors, leveraging diversity in the workforce is increasingly being seen as a strategic resource for competitive advantage [13–15]. It has also been argued that diversity is critical to the success of an organisation’s bottom line [16]. It is interesting to note that many of the advantages associated with diversity mirror those associated with inclusion , as will be evident later in the chapter.

One potential advantage associated with diversity concerns Cost Savings . Cost savings, in this instance, focus on the negative impact the mismanagement of diversity has on an organisation’s bottom line. This negative impact specifically refers to higher staff turnover costs, higher absenteeism rates and lawsuits on sexual, age and race discrimination. Regarding higher turnover costs, turnover among diverse employees is a costly and significant problem for many organisations, as are the subsequent added recruiting, staffing and training costs per person. Additionally, a persistent flow of employees through an organisation results in employees continually climbing the learning curve, rather than performing to their full potential [13, 17]. It is arguable, therefore, that managing diversity enables employees to perform to their potential [18].

The second element of the cost savings argument concerns lowering absenteeism rates. Absenteeism rates, as has been well documented, can amount to significant costs for organisations. Absenteeism can occur when individuals do not feel secure about their status, as such insecurity prevents employees from fully engaging at work. Monks [7] suggests that the introduction of diversity initiatives has a positive influence on absenteeism rates, tending to result in a reduction of both labour turnover and absenteeism levels.

The final aspect of the cost savings argument focuses on lawsuits on sexual, age and race discrimination, or, perhaps more specifically, a strategic organisational effort to avoid their occurrence [17, 19, 20]. Diversity programmes should assist organisations in complying with laws regarding discrimination, and ensure that policies and processes are in place in organisations to deter discrimination lawsuits, as organisations that are conscious of the diversity of their workforce are more likely to anticipate problems, thus potentially reduce the risk of litigation [13, 21]. Kim [22] examines this argument from an alternative angle, discussing it in terms of company image. Organisations can focus on improving the company’s public image or enhancing its image by using diversity management to reduce the chance of discrimination law suits. It must be cautioned, however, that with the exception of costs relating to turnover, actual cost savings from improving diversity management are difficult to measure [23].

Winning the competition for talent , or the “talent war” , refers to the attraction, retention and promotion of employees from different demographic groups, and is another argument for managing diversity [14, 17, 24]. It has been strongly suggested that an organisation’s future is dependent on the quality of talent it attracts and retains [16]. To sustain a competitive advantage, organisations must be able to optimise their human resources [17]. Indeed, Carbery and Cross [25] contend that for many organisations, one way in which effectiveness is measured is via the achievement, and maintenance, of sustainable competitive advantage. Organisations should focus on identifying, retaining and developing their key employees in order to gain a competitive advantage over competitors [26]. Organisations that are able to recruit, develop, retain and promote diverse employees are more likely to have an edge over their competition, as talented employees will be attracted to organisations that value their capabilities. These employees will also be more willing to invest in productive activity if they believe they are being treated fairly, and that career opportunities are available to them [17]. Espinoza [13] similarly advocates a belief that a diverse workforce allows diverse employees to identify with the company, making the company attractive to other diverse potential employees .

Diversity can also aid in employee retention , as commitment to diversity indicates to employees that the organisation cares for them as individuals [13, 21]. Organisations are cautioned that if they do not effectively manage diversity issues, diverse talent will leave in favour of a competitor who does [27, 28]. That being said, it is also noteworthy that Schneider’s [29] attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model indicates that the attraction and retention of diverse employees may not be a straightforward process, arguing that organisations naturally evolve towards social homogeneity as individuals prefer to be with others who bear similarities to them. While candidates are more attracted to organisations that they believe are made up of individuals similar to themselves, if, once hired, these employees do not seem to fit in with the rest of the organisation, they are more likely to experience dissatisfaction and, ultimately, leave. If such a condition repeats over a period of time, the result is a gradual homogenisation of an organisation [10, 29]. While this seems to suggest that homogeneity of the workforce may be inevitable, to avoid this natural drift towards homogeneity, and subsequent increased turnover costs, Jackson and Joshi [6] indicate a proactive approach to increasing diversity may be necessary. Arguably, this position would appear to support the assertion that diversity must be actively managed.

Driving business growth is another argument in favour of managing diversity [17]. Driving business growth centres on organisations managing diversity to leverage a number of possible opportunities. The first opportunity is based on organisations using workforce diversity to gain an increased understanding of the marketplace in which they operate [21, 27, 30, 31]. A 2003 report on diversity undertaken by the European Commission cited improved access to new market segments and improving performance in existing markets as benefits of diversity [30, 31]. Furthermore, customers and suppliers are becoming increasingly diverse, as indeed is the marketplace as a whole [16, 17, 23, 32]. It arguably makes sense that the understanding needed to market to diverse demographics, and to respond to their needs, naturally resides in marketers with the same background [17, 33]. Additionally, it has previously been found that individuals from a minority culture are sometimes more likely to give patronage to a sales representative from their own culture [23]. Similarly, in addition to gaining market penetration, organisations can benefit from the goodwill of diverse customers who prefer to buy products produced by a diverse workforce , or who prefer to do business with organisations that have a diverse sales force [17]. Espinoza [13] advocates this line of reasoning, believing that an organisation’s sales force should match its customer base, adding that diversity provides a good image to an organisation’s customer base, and enhances company branding.

A further opportunity arising from diversity is greater employee creativity and innovation [7, 17, 27, 31, 34–36]. Attitudes, cognitive functioning and beliefs tend to vary with demographic variables such as gender , age and race. As diversity shapes how we view things, one consequence of diversity in an organisation’s workforce , therefore, is the presence of different perspectives or views on the performance of tasks [16, 17, 34]. If the varying approaches, views or opinions are considered, the likely result is the enablement of management to make better and more informed decisions [13]. Additionally, managing diversity can make employees feel valued and supported, which tends to result in employees becoming more innovative [37]. It is also suggested that diversity can increase the quality of team problem-solving, as diversity among team members enables employees to see problems from an array of perspectives, based on their wide range of experiences, potentially producing better decisions [17, 21, 23, 24, 35, 38]. Van Knippenberg [38] cautions that in reality, however, groups often struggle in harnessing the potential advantages of diversity , which is perhaps unsurprising given our knowledge of the issue of group-think and the notion of group culture as a subculture of organisational culture. Additionally, organisations must now also attempt to not solely source the best individual for a position, but also consider the best combination of individuals in terms of their characteristics [10].

In addition to enhancing group and individual performance , less emphasis on employee conformity to past norms, via the open acceptance of diversity, should also improve creativity [23]. The notion that innovation is a positive consequence of the presence of a diverse organisation or team is grounded in two propositions [10]. First, it is assumed that diverse individuals have diverse, and consequently more novel, ideas. Second, if individuals approach the same task from diverse points of view, task-related conflicts are more likely to occur. Dealing with these conflicts should result in a more thorough consideration of all aspects and approaches, culminating in more innovative solutions [10, 39]. A related argument for managing diversity relates to the earlier mentioned concept of group-think, or rather avoiding it. Conflicts due to diverse perspectives result in questioning, and moving beyond, prior practices, thus require questioning of current ideas or practices and the overcoming of group-think [10].

Diversity in organisations offers the potential to improve effectiveness at higher levels in the organisation. Heterogeneity of top management can prevent a myopic perspective at senior levels, and so leveraging diversity in higher levels of the organisation can provide the organisation with an opportunity to improve leadership effectiveness. Furthermore, the increased awareness developed by organisations that manage or adapt to diversity can help them become more effective in cross-cultural business situations [17, 21, 22, 27]. Additionally, good diversity skills are compatible with good people management skills, and so focussing on management’s ability to supervise a diverse workforce can result in improvement of their overall people management skills [21].

Managing diversity can also improve the organisations bottom line [2, 13, 14, 40–42]. Employees who believe their employer supports them have a tendency to be more productive. This increase in productivity positively impacts the organisation’s bottom line [2, 13]. A commitment to diversity enables every employee to contribute their individual ideas, talents and skills to the organisation, which again ultimately drives the organisations bottom line [40]. Moore [9], however, argues that the link between diversity and performance is not automatic or straightforward.

As well as potentially improving organisational performance , diversity can also impact an organisation’s flexibility . Through managing diversity, organisations should become less standardised, and more fluid. This fluidity should, in turn, create greater flexibility, enabling organisations to react to environmental changes with greater speed, and at less cost [23]. Alternatively, organisations used to offering flexible arrangements, such as family friendly or work–life balance opportunities, may be better placed to overcome skills shortages or provide alternatives to redundancies in difficult times through career breaks or job-sharing initiatives , thus retaining their employees [21]. The culture of presenteeism in many organisations, however, can result in limited uptake of flexible working arrangements by employees due to fears that using such arrangements may result in reduced career opportunities , thereby nullifying the potential benefits [7].

While a number of arguments have been presented for diversity management , there are also many potential challenges associated with diversity in organisations, as discussed in the next section of this chapter.

Challenges Associated with Diversity in the Workforce

Managers may now find themselves with a new and pressing, or sensitive, set of challenges that were not as dominating, or perhaps were irrelevant, in an (apparently) homogenous workforce [12, 36]. Moreover, although managers are being increasingly called upon to deliver diversity strategies, there is little evidence that managers are receiving the training or support necessary to do so [7]. Consequently, managers may be more likely to view diversity a marginal activity, and be reactive, concentrating on minimal compliance, rather than proactive, concentrating on possible positive outcomes.

The genuine support and commitment of top management to diversity is crucial [7, 23, 28, 43]. A lack of commitment on the part of top management may pose a challenge, because if they do not talk about diversity, and embrace its values, diversity initiatives will not work [13]. Resources, such as human, financial and technical, must be committed, and provided to the organisation’s diversity initiatives [23, 44]. Indeed, commitment from the organisations top leadership is seen as a component of a best practice approach to diversity management by the U.S. government’s Accountability Office [45]. While crucial, however, top management support alone is not sufficient. The use of champions for diversity at lower levels in the organization, and employee involvement in driving diversity, is also of great importance [23, 28, 43].

A significant challenge to diversity arises if various groups believe diversity is only important to their group. If these groups have their own separate agendas, rather than working together to improve diversity throughout the organisation, top management may not believe in the merits of diversity [13]. A further issue concerning groups relates to grouping individuals based on generalisations. Organisations have, for example, a tendency to treat female employees and ethnic minorities as homogeneous groups. Doing so results in neglecting individuals in those groups who do not fit the profile of the stereotypical member of that organisationally formed group [46]. Doing so also neglects consideration of all the ways in which the individuals in that group differ from each other.

Fully accepting diversity means accepting change about how business is done. This forms another challenge, as many individuals are uncomfortable with change, therefore resist it [13, 18, 44, 47]. Diversity management should bring about a change in recruiting and retention policies, as well as a change in how people view and accept differences [13]. A challenge is also posed by cosmetic changes, which disguise what really happens in the organisation.

The fear of reverse discrimination has also been raised as a challenge to managing diversity . Some employees may believe that managing diversity is a smokescreen for reverse discrimination, and so these employees may resist diversity management initiatives [18, 20]. Carnevale and Stone [2] and [48] also highlight reverse discrimination as a challenge, proposing that men in particular, specifically white men, are being forgotten about by organisations. Such fears are reflected in the Resistance Paradigm for managing diversity. This paradigm develops through concerns by a majority that they may be displaced by minorities. Under this paradigm, all visible differences , and increasing pressure for diversity , are considered threats [49]. As such, it is important that white males are included in the organisations future vision for diversity, and their role in achieving such is clearly outlined [2]. Indeed, also referring to men, Muzio and Tomlinson [50] and Smithson and Stoke [51] note that work–life balance policies are often seen as policies for women’s problems, even though such policies are gender neutral. Similarly, Kent and O’Donovan [52] highlighted that literature concerning work–life balance indicates a bias towards women.

It was earlier noted that diversity in opinions and ideas is considered a positive reason for managing diversity [16, 17, 23]. In contrast, it has also been identified as a challenge, especially for managers [12]. One reason for this negative view centres on organisations attempting to set agreement on important matters. Previously, such agreements may have been quickly achieved, whereas now, managers in diverse organisations now have to sift through, and decipher, a number of different perspectives on the same problem or issue. This can be a rather time-consuming process, and the task of management becomes more complex [36].

Increasing interaction among diverse members in the organisation also increases the potential for friction in the organisation [2, 53]. Friction and resulting tension can reverberate throughout the organization, causing a reduction in productivity, an increase in costs and reduced quality products or services. Tensions may also arise as a result of culture clashes. Culture clashes can be a drain on the performance of individuals involved, and perhaps undermine or damage organisational culture. Consequently, work relationships and output may suffer [2]. Indeed, there is, on occasion, an overall pessimistic view of diversity which suggests that diversity creates social divisions, resulting in negative outcomes for the organisation [54].

Tokenism , whether real or perceived, can present a further challenge for organisations [12]. Tokenism occurs when an individual is hired over more qualified candidates, either in an effort to address the concerns of stakeholders, or to fulfil quota numbers. While quota systems are rarely in an organization’s best interests, in an organization that has little tolerance for diversity, quotas may be the only way to ensure that diverse candidates will be included in recruitment and selection processes [12]. The use of quota systems, through which organisations focus their recruitment and selection activities at particular diverse groups, is advised against by a number of authors, for a number of reasons. Joplin and Daus [12] and Von Bergen et al. [20] believe quotas automatically result in a perception of tokenism . Flynn [48] warns that quotas can lead to discrimination towards white men. Perceived tokenism often occurs when the diversity of an organization is increased, as growing diversity often carries the perception that less qualified candidates are being hired. In addition to the perceptions of existing employees , new employees who believe they were hired for anything other than their merit may become defensive, feel vulnerable and eventually begin to question their capabilities [12]. These issues may result in increased turnover rates among new hires. The use of quotas may result in organisations attempting to manage diversity through the Discrimination and Fairness Paradigm, although perhaps not consciously. This paradigm is based primarily on equal opportunities, fair treatment, recruitment and compliance with legislation, but the potential difficulty is that it tends to focus too much on achieving what is perceived as the “right number” of diverse employees [22], rather than the right people for the job. Thomas and Ely [55] do observe, however, that while organisations operating under this paradigm measure progress in diversity by how well they achieve their recruitment and retention goals, it does actually move beyond being solely concerned with numbers.

Finally, while cost savings was previously discussed as an advantage associated with diversity , it is also possible that companies investing in diversity face additional costs. Organisations may face costs associated with legal compliance, cash costs of diversity , opportunity costs and business risks [30]. Potential costs associated with legal compliance may include employee training, record-keeping processes and the cost of communication of new policies. The extent of these costs for different companies will be influenced by the nature of existing internal processes and legislative requirements. Cash costs associated with diversity may be short term, “one-off” costs, for example, improving access to buildings for employees with mobility impairments, but are often long-term and recurring. Potential cash costs include, for example, those associated with the necessity for specialist staff and the provision of training, the provision of support and facilities, communication costs, the development of employment policies and monitoring and reporting processes. Opportunity costs associated with diversity may include managers’ time and productivity shortfalls. The business risks of diversity centre on the tendency for many programmes which have been designed to change organisational culture taking longer than intended, or failing. This phenomenon is referred to as execution risk [30].

Regardless of the potential challenges associated with diversity , given the potential advantages and the ever-presence of diversity, it must be managed. In addition, this chapter proposes that diversity management is a gateway to inclusion initiatives, and so managing diversity is discussed in the following section of this chapter.

Diversity Management : What It Is, and How to Do It

Different people behave in different ways [56]. Employees who may appear similar, perhaps with regard to age or gender , are still very different individuals, and so may respond differently to the same stimulus, and various management styles [57]. As such, rather than treating every employee in the same way, managers must instead recognise and respond to employee differences in such a way that retention and productivity are maintained, while discrimination is avoided and fairness is maintained. This, Robbins [58] suggests, is one of the most important challenges facing organisations today.

As discussed earlier, diversity may present organisations with a number of benefits. The mere presence of a diverse workforce is insufficient to realise these advantages [59]. Instead, to leverage these benefits , organisations must manage diversity [23]. It should initially be noted that managing diversity and valuing diversity are not the same. Valuing diversity is a more passive phenomenon, referring to being aware of the relative worth and importance of diversity, whereas managing diversity is an active phenomenon, which involves coordinating and directing the differences of employees to ensure strategic organisational goals are met [60]. With that in mind, however, it is also noteworthy that Liff [46], who has also distinguished between valuing and managing diversity , does suggest that valuing diversity is a possible version of diversity management , albeit one that lacks a strategy for overcoming potential problems associated with diversity.

Managing diversity does not mean controlling or containing it, nor does it involve the assimilation of employees to fit the organisations existing culture [21, 61]. Instead, diversity management refers to a concept of enabling each member of a workforce to perform to their potential [61]. Such enablement requires organisations to adopt a new way of thinking about differences among people, and a new approach to the way in which employees are treated [18, 21]. Additionally, as referred to in the previous section of this chapter, in order to be truly successful, diversity management must receive support from the top levels of the organization [2, 13, 14, 28, 44, 49, 62]. It is essential that managers take a proactive approach to their involvement with employees [12]. One method by which top management commitment may be secured is to involve managers in the planning process, giving them ownership of diversity goals [2]. It is also arguable that developing a diverse organization necessitates the presence of diverse management [63].

Organisations are cautioned that it is ill-advised to make diversity management the responsibility of a single individual, as diversity management initiatives may collapse, if and when, that individual leaves the company [28]. To offset this concern, diversity management should be made a company-wide issue. It is also important to note that as everyone, regardless of superficial similarities , has a different background, some will emphatically embrace diversity, others will not be sure about it, and others will simply view it as a nuisance [13].

There is no single best way to create a model of diversity management , as each organisation is different [21, 62]. IBEC [21] propose a four-phased cyclical diversity management model, as seen in Fig. 1, which may be adapted to meet an organisations particular need.

Fig. 1
figure 1

IBEC’s diversity management model . Source O’Donovan [1], Adapted from IBEC [21: 8]

Full size image

The first stage, analysis , involves constructing a profile of the level of diversity that exists among the organisations workforce and customer base. Following this, existing or current employment processes must be examined to identify areas relating to diversity that require addressing [21]. Kochan et al. [64] are also advocates of such analysis, arguing that regardless of the widespread use and availability of Human Resources information systems, they have found that HR data concerning groups and individuals could not be readily linked to performance. Consequently, HR practitioners, and organisations, are limited in terms of learning how to effectively manage the diversity in their company, weakening their stance on the strategic importance of diversity.

The second stage requires organisations to take a comprehensive approach to establishing the key objectives behind the diversity strategy. Following this planning stage, the diversity management programme should be ready to implement, bringing the organization to stage three in the cycle. Successful implementation requires diversity strategies to not solely be seen as a human resources issue, rather, as vital to the achievement of the organisations goals. Additionally, while it may sometimes be appropriate to devise new policies, amendment of existing policies and procedures is also important. Once the programme has been implemented, it is crucial that it is regularly assessed, and, if found to not be achieving the desired objectives, amended, requiring movement through the cycle again [21].

Many executives may be unsure of why they should want to learn how to manage diversity [61]. Moore [9] makes reference to a particular perspective of diversity in organisations termed Diversity Blindness. This perspective does not consider diversity an issue that must be addressed, resulting in diversity and diversity training being ignored. Consequently, organisations proposing to manage diversity should begin by clarifying their underlying motivation, as, given today’s competitive challenges , it is likely that only business reasons, specifically reasons that highlight potential improvements in the organisations bottom line , for example those outlined in this chapter, will result in the long-term motivation critical to managing diversity [61]. Indeed, a report undertaken on behalf of the European Commission proposes that companies adopt policies for three types of reason; ethical, regulatory and economic, or a mix of the three [30].

Doke and Beagrie [41] propose that the starting point of any diversity management programme is to communicate to an organisation’s workforce what diversity is, what the organization is aspiring to achieve, and the goals the organization has set in place to assist it in achieving its aim of effective diversity management . Indeed, Miller and Tucker [43] highlight that creating awareness of benefits of diversity among management and employees is important, as doing so increases commitment to furthering the diversity goals of the organization. Kreitz [44] agrees, and suggests that human resources directors and senior managers should express the motives behind their interest in diversity, and identify the ways in which diversity will benefit the organisation. A number of steps may be taken by organisations to communicate the reasons for managing diversity to its employees, and to initiate the process of diversity management.

First, it is essential that the vision is clarified [41, 61]. The ideal vision to be communicated to the organisations employees is an image of fully tapping the human resource potential of each individual in the workforce. Additionally, managers must attempt to expand their focus [61]. There is a tendency for equal employment opportunities to focus on women and minorities, offering little to white men in particular, who are just as diverse in numerous ways. Indeed, [48] cautions that white men may see a negative side to diversity programmes, as they are being grouped into one bundle by some.

As the goal of diversity management is to create a heterogeneous culture, or to make use of their heterogeneity, organisations should undertake a corporate culture audit. As a corporate culture comprises a collection of unspoken and unexamined values, assumptions and mythologies, a culture audit is impossible to conduct without external assistance [61]. Cox and Blake [23] are advocates of this step, being of the opinion that a comprehensive analysis of organisational culture and organisational systems such as recruitment, performance appraisal, assessment of potential and promotion and compensation should be conducted. Organisations can use this audit to uncover sources of unfavourable potential bias towards, or against, certain groups, and to identify ways in which the organisations culture may inadvertently put some members of the organisation at a disadvantage.

Carrying on from their cultural audit , organisations need to modify their underlying cultural assumptions . A particular problem with corporate culture is that when changes to it are attempted, they are met by intense opposition [61]. Regardless, organisations must still attempt to modify their cultural assumptions if they are to succeed in transforming their organisation from homogenous to heterogeneous. The first purpose of modifying underlying cultural assumptions is the enablement of organisational systems reform. Organisations should identify not whether the system is at maximum efficiency, rather whether the system works for all employees . The second purpose of assumption modification is to modify models of managerial and employee behaviour , as managers seek subordinates who will do as they do, or subordinates who aspire to be like them [61].

Organisations also need to assist their employees in becoming pioneers of diversity . Learning to manage diversity constitutes a change process, thus, the managers of the organization must become change agents. Top management articulates the organisations new diversity policy and their commitment to it, yet it falls to middle management to implement the policy, and deal with any new resulting problems. To help them do so, these managers should be appropriately trained, and reminded of their importance in diversity efforts.

The penultimate step requires organisations that aim to manage diversity to apply a special consideration test to diversity programmes . A number of questions are to be addressed, specifically:

  • Does the programme/principle/policy give special consideration to one group?

  • Will the programme/principle/policy contribute to everyone’s success, or just the success of one group?

  • Is the programme/principle/policy designed for them as opposed to us? [61: 115].

If the answer to these questions is yes, the organisation is not yet on the way to managing diversity .

Finally, organisations who are trying to learn how to manage diversity can continue to use affirmative action . Similar to the usage of quotas, organisations do need to move beyond affirmative action, as affirmative action does not deal with the causes of prejudice and inequality, nor does it help to develop the potential of every individual in the organisation. An alternative final step has been suggested by Cox and Blake [23], termed “follow-up”. Follow-up consists of monitoring change, evaluating results and institutionalising the changes as part of the organisations continuing processes. Follow-up should include more training and repetition of the audit step. Organisations can also use focus groups to facilitate continuing discussions on diversity issues. Alternatively, organisations can, as part of their greater diversity management initiatives, engage in diversity training.

Regardless of the approach to diversity management employed, there is a tendency to become simplistic or rigid when considering differences [65]. Ferdman and Brody [66] argue that differences should not be the basis for invidious distinctions between individuals, rather should be a source of pride, and used to the benefit of all. It is necessary, therefore, that diversity management go further than complying with existing legal rules or attempting to react to shift in workforce demographics [67]. Organisations need to move beyond diversity management towards creating an organisational environment that is inclusive for all employees [68]. Individuals need to feel, and be, included in their professional workplace environments [69]. Indeed, Anderson [34] proposes that any diversity initiative will be more successful if managers engage and use processes that foster equity, consensus and empowerment among, and of, employees , while Sabharwal [68] notes that many authors have articulated that inclusion is the crux of organisational diversity efforts. Ultimately, organisations should move towards inclusion.

Inclusion

Many individuals consider their individuality a significant part of themselves, a part which they would not like to be overlooked [70]. In addition, to realise the potential benefits of diversity , it is insufficient to simply hire and retain diverse employees, rather, these diverse employees must be more fully integrated into the social fabric of the organization [71]. Increasing emphasis is being placed on the need to leverage multiculturalism and foster inclusion as a basis for the success of an organization [72]. Pless and Maak [67] propose that organisations who take an assimilation approach to diversity, which largely ignores differences , rather than an approach of integration and inclusion, will struggle to achieve the potential benefits afforded by a diverse workforce , as discussed earlier. Similarly, Ferdman [59] states that it is not the presence of diversity, rather how it is addressed, that leads to positive outcomes. Before proceeding, it should be noted that diversity and inclusion, although related, are not interchangeable terms for the same concept, rather are separate [73].

When discussing how diversity should be “done” in organisations, Davidson and Ferdman [74] propose that the answer rests in an inclusive version of diversity. An inclusionary approach to diversity management is one in which:

Differences are recognized, valued and engaged. Different voices are understood as being legitimate and as opening up new vistas; they are heard and integrated in decision making and problem solving processes; they have an active role in shaping and fostering creativity and innovation; and eventually in adding value to the company’s performance [67: 130].

Ferdman [59: 4] concisely notes that:

Inclusion involves how well organizations and their members fully connect with, engage, and utilize people across all types of differences.

Based on these definitions, under an inclusionary approach to diversity management , the differences of individuals in the workplace are not just identified, rather are integrated into the fabric of the organisations culture . Consequently Pless and Maak [67] propose the argument that to fully realise the potential of diversity, a culture of inclusion must be developed and established by the organisation. A culture of inclusion fosters enhanced integration amongst employees , and activates latent diversity potentials. Such a culture, built on clarified normative foundations, honours both the differences of employees, and their similarities [67]. Full inclusion , and truly valuing differences, requires the implementation of organisational processes that involve all members of the community, or organization [65, 74].

The Nature, Dimensions and Levels of Inclusion

Inclusion is a contextual, individual, momentary and transient concept, which occurs at both the organisational and individual level [1, 59]. Organisations should also be aware that employees can feel simultaneously included and un-included. Individuals may perceive inclusion in one area, perhaps among the colleagues in their team or department, but not in the wider organization. It does not follow that an employee who feels included in one context will perceive inclusion in all other organisational contexts , and it is not automatic that an individual perceiving inclusion now will do so in the future. This is significant, as it means that organisations that are aiming to be inclusive, indeed, may generally be considered to be so, may have individuals in the workforce who do not perceive inclusion. Organisations are therefore cautioned that fostering inclusion at the individual level is an ongoing process. As such, organisations should operate under the hypothesis that inclusion is not a static concept, with employees perceiving or not perceiving inclusion, rather, it is contextually dependant. Consequently, organisations are advised to make an effort to monitor inclusion on a continual basis, to ensure that employee’s perceptions of inclusion remain, even when operating in another context, for example, on a different team or in another department [1].

Furthermore, developing inclusion just at an individual level is likely insufficient, cognisant that different departments may have different cultures and manners of operating, meaning, as mentioned above, an individual may feel included in one area, but not in another. If there is an attempt to be an overall inclusive organisation , this may reduce the likelihood that individuals feel un-included when outside of their department [1]. In addition, some individuals may believe they need to take an active role in developing their feelings of inclusion, yet others may believe it occurs naturally [1, 59]. Organisations are again reminded, therefore, to examine inclusion efforts at both an overall organisational level, an individual level, and also at a team level. Doing so will assist in creating an organizational environment to support individuals, who believe inclusion should naturally occur, while also assisting in maintaining an individual’s perception of inclusion even when operating in different departments or with different functions [1].

Inclusion is multi-dimensional. Indeed, Nishii et al. [71] propose three dimensions of organisational inclusion, specifically, Foundation of Fairness in Employment Practices, Organisational Culture of Inclusion, and Inclusion through Participation . The Foundation of Fairness in Employment Practices dimension relates to the extent to which an organisations HR policies ensure a level playing field for all employees. To create a wholly inclusive environment , organisations must design and implement practices without bias to ensure both diversity throughout the organization, and goodwill on the part of employees . While the presence of employee-friendly policies is important, the presence of such policies, however, does not necessarily translate into the development of an inclusive organization [68]. It was noted earlier, for example, that family-friendly work–life balance policies often appear geared towards women. Indeed, in a study by Kent and O’Donovan [52], it was noted that in participating organisations, more flexible work options were available to women.

Dimension two, Organisational Culture of Inclusion, refers to the extent to which the organisations basic assumptions, values and norms are inclusive of all employees. If they are truly inclusive, employees do not feel a pressure to conform to an ideal employee profile. Consequently, employees do not feel a pressure to hide or face a conflict with their identity [71]. Truly inclusive organisations help those employees who feel they do not belong to the mainstream feel part of the organization as a whole, while also helping those who do feel they belong to continue to feel so [74]. Under the dimension Organisational Culture of Inclusion , organisations devote resources to equipping their employees with the skills necessary for cooperation with other diverse individuals, recognise different perspectives and create a culture of openness through which employees can learn from each other’s views [71]. This would certainly be useful for organisations aiming to become, and continue to be, a learning organisation.

The third dimension, Inclusion through Participation, concerns the extent to which an organisation successfully capitalises on, and leverages, the diversity of its workforce, to apply learning from diverse perspectives to decision-making. This dimension is grounded in the premise that diversity only benefits an organisation when employees are encouraged to manifest their diversity on idea generation and decision-making. Rather than simply telling employees they are free to make suggestions and be involved in decision-making, employees should be actively encouraged to come forward, perhaps, for example, by being invited to attend meetings. Successful operation of this dimension necessitates both formal and informal participation. Examples of formal participation include representation on key decision-making bodies or committees, while informal participation concerns participating in every-day, on-the-job decision-making. In addition to encouraging the expression of diverse opinions and experiences, they must also be incorporated into decision-making to ensure employees feel respected and included [71]. This means that when employees are invited to contribute, and that contribution is useful, it should be employed. Failing to make use of employee involvement will likely eventually result in employees no longer coming forward with suggestions, setting back the progress of inclusion efforts. Indeed, Sabharwal [68] posits that individuals feel accepted and secure in the organisation when they are part of the decision-making process.

If an organisation falls short on any of the three dimensions of inclusion identified above, then obstacles to the full utilisation of diversity remain. Essentially, Nishii et al. [71: 2] expect that:

The relationship between diversity and performance…will be moderated by these three dimensions: in units/organisations that score high on these dimensions, there will be a stronger, positive relationship between diversity and performance than in units/organisations that score low on these dimensions.

Similar to Nishii et al.’s [71] multi-dimensional view of inclusion, Gasoreck [75: 27], while describing inclusion at the multinational firm Dun & Bradstreet, also takes a multi-faceted view of inclusion, deeming it to concern the degree to which:

  • Employees are valued, and their ideas are both taken into account and used

  • Employees partner successfully both in and across departments

  • Current employees feel they belong in the organization, and prospective employees are attracted to the organization

  • Employees feel committed to each other, the organisation, and the organisations goals and

  • The organisation continues to foster flexibility and choice, and attends to diversity .

It is interesting to note that this last point (above) arguably supports the contention of this chapter that inclusionary efforts should begin with diversity management .

While there are clearly commonalities concerning what constitutes inclusion , for example feeling valued or respected, individuals perceive these themes in different ways, therefore, even if an organization is deemed to have an inclusive culture , some employees may still not feel included [1, 69]. The core proposition, as discussed earlier, is that inclusion occurs at two levels: the individual and the organisational level. Furthermore, an individual’s diverse make-up may impact their perceptions, or whether they experience feelings, of inclusion. Individuals, for example, who are introverts, may experience inclusion via the establishment of one or two social connections, while more extroverted individuals may have to interact with a larger portion of the community to feel fully part of it. Consequently, individuals are cautioned to consider that treating others as they would like to be treated may not serve to make others feel included, rather may appear to be an imposition of their own values on to others. It is important, therefore, that organisations attempt to uncover the needs of their employees with regard to what will result in feeling of inclusion, and subsequently aim to address those needs [69]. One simple method for uncovering what inclusion looks and feels like for different employees is to simply ask them [76].

Addressing individual inclusion at the individual level is not, however, as mentioned earlier, a sufficient strategy for the nurturing of an inclusive organisation . Nurturing organisation-wide inclusiveness instead requires systematic and proactive efforts at the organisational level [49, 69]. Indeed, Thomas and Ely [55] (adapted by Davidson and Ferdman 2002: 83) propose that to fully utilise, and learn from, workforce diversity , organisations must satisfy a number of preconditions, specifically:

  • The organisations leaders must understand that diversity includes different opinions, insights and approaches to work

  • Leaders must also understand that diversity presents both opportunities for new learning, but also challenges in the form of a need for unlearning and relearning

  • Each individual should be held to high performance standards , and the organisational culture must encourage employee development through training and education . Employees must also feel valued to ensure they contribute high levels of performance

  • Constructive conflict , open communication and tolerance for dialogue must be encouraged

  • A non-bureaucratic process must be in place to enable employees to constructively challenge current operating methods, and reshape past policies and practices, to be a more inclusive, empowering organization.

Regardless of these proposed preconditions, it is also insufficient to solely focus on inclusion at an organisational level. Instead, both the individual and organisational levels should be viewed as independently vital for inclusion, but also interactive. Additionally, although there are a number of things organisations can do to foster an inclusive work environment, inclusion is, in many ways, a momentary creation, dependant on the particular individuals and situations. Creating an inclusive culture, therefore, is a continuous process [69].

In addition to considering inclusion at the individual and organisational level, organisations may also need to consider the concept of subordinant and dominant groups. While employees are unique individuals, they also share group membership with others as part of their identity. This has an impact both on the way individuals treat, and are treated by, others [70, 77]. Groups do not hold equal status; some are typically systematically privileged while others are typically disadvantaged. Subordinant groups are those in lower power positions, while dominant groups are those typically in a higher power position. When an individual from a subordinant group occupies a position of assigned power in an organisation, they may have significant power as an individual, however, would still be a member of a subordinant group. Conversely, an individual from a dominant group operating in a position of relatively little power in the organization may have little power as an individual, but, as a member of a dominant identity group, still likely experience benefits in both subtle and overt ways [77].

The primary implication of the distinction between, and presence of, these groups, is that well-intended efforts to create an environment of inclusion may be hindered if the dynamics of the group power relationships are not considered [77]. By looking through the lens of subordinant and dominant groups, organisations can enhance their understanding of what is required to create and participate in an inclusive organization [78]. Having been made aware of the presence of such distinctive groups, employees may be enlightened as to how members of these groups can support organisational efforts to create a culture of inclusion . Regarding dominant groups, Davidson and Ferdman [77] advance a number of prerequisites for supporting inclusion , specifically:

  • Dominants should assume a position of inquisitive probability, which requires them to accept that they are a member of a dominant group, which has implications for the manner in which they engage with individuals in subordinant groups.

  • Individuals from dominant groups should be encouraged to develop skills enabling them to distinguish impact from intent, in that a dominant’s behaviour towards a subordinant group member may be benevolent in intention, but injurious in perception.

  • An effort should be made to learn about the experiences of subordinants to assist in increasing the overall sense of organisational inclusion.

  • Dominants should aim to use their positions of power and privilege to change the structures and systems that exclude or discriminate against subordinants.

It is important, however, that dominants are not made to feel that they are “the problem”. Indeed, subordinants have a role in the fostering of an organisational culture of inclusion , albeit rather different. It is recommended that subordinants:

  • Assume a position of cautious openness, by engaging in dialogue and mutual learning,

  • Give effective feedback regarding which dominant behaviours should be reinforced or eliminated,

  • Invite dominants to be guests in the subordinants group culture,

  • Push for constructive change [77].

Members of both subordinant and dominant groups have roles to play in shaping a culture of inclusion . Individuals, however, possess multiple identities, and as such may be members of both dominant and subordinant groups. To assist, therefore, in creating a culture of inclusion in the organization, individuals will likely need to attempt to reconcile their multiple roles and group memberships [77].

Potential Advantages Presented by a Culture of Inclusion

As highlighted in Fig. 2, there are a number of advantages associated with inclusion . Some of these advantages directly benefit employees , while all benefit the organisation. Many of the advantages identified in Fig. 2 mirror those resulting from diversity in the organization. As discussed earlier, however, the advantages associated with diversity are more likely to be realised under a culture of inclusion. Given that the potential advantages are mirrored, yet inclusion is a more holistic, integrative approach to diversity management , it is again argued that organisations move beyond diversity management towards inclusion. Indeed, a report examining global diversity and inclusion published by Forbes, in 2011, proposes that both a diverse workforce and an inclusive culture are necessary for global success. Similarly, Sabharwal [68] contends that inclusive management holds greater potential for improved productivity and workplace harmony than diversity management alone. Ferdman [79] simply states that inclusion can provide critical benefits to workgroups, organisations and society.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Advantages associated with inclusion . Source Author (O’Donovan 2017)

Full size image

Under an inclusive environment , diversity is a key driver of innovation and creativity, and can drive business strategies [80]. Similar to the business case for managing diversity , diversity coupled with an inclusive culture is purported to enhance idea generation relating to products and practices, due to the wide range of employee experiences and perspectives [65, 80]. Indeed, Davidson and Ferdman [69] have previously asserted that inclusion serves to open a pathway by which individuals can organise and use their personal resources to do what they do best, meaning employees can use those diverse experiences and perspectives. Moreover, 85% of executive respondents in the aforementioned global Forbes [80] report agreed with the assertion that a diverse, inclusive workforce is critical to encouraging the varied ideas and perspectives that drive innovation. Indeed, increased focus may be given by companies to the impact of diversity and inclusion on innovation, as organisations increasingly attempt to use the power of innovation to drive business goals [80]. It is interesting to note that in 2003, during a workshop on the topic of inclusion undertaken by Ferdman, in which participants were asked to discuss outcomes of inclusion that they had experienced, participants noted an improved ability to accomplish organisational goals, again supporting the argument for an inclusionary approach to diversity management .

The existence of a diverse and inclusive workforce can assist in ensuring that the products and services offered by the organisation are respectful and mindful of their customers, and even their customer’s clients. If the workforce is reflective of the organisations customer base, and is willing and able to use that similarity to improve product or service offerings, the organisations outputs can be closer aligned with customer desires. This can result in increased customer satisfaction [76, 80]. Inclusive organisations may also benefit from assistance from their employees on global challenges , including varying laws and regulations, language barriers and cultural barriers [80]. Employees in an inclusive organization may, for example be willing to openly discuss their national culture , thereby assisting the organisation in better understanding, and adapting to, that culture. Moreover, inclusion can result in improved productivity and less errors, which can result in the production of products of a higher quality [76]. Indeed, decreased errors may also positively impact the organisations bottom line , as less profit will be lost to wastage.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the business case for diversity proposes that the employment of diverse employees, and diversity management policies, will aid in the attraction, and retention, of the best talent [14, 17]. Rather than the mere presence of diversity in a workforce, however, an inclusive organisational environment is crucial to the attraction and retention of the best candidates [80]. Organisations can design diversity and inclusion policies to be used as specific recruiting and retention policies, broadening the talent pool from which they can recruit, while developing an employment brand that is seen to be fully inclusive [80]. This nods to a link between inclusion and Employer Branding initiatives, indicating that inclusion can assist in strengthening the employer brand, while the employer brand can be used to reinforce, and highlight, inclusion. Success in recruiting diverse talent does often, however, depend on the organisations ability to provide job advancement opportunities equally. This presents an argument as to why organisations should begin inclusion efforts via diversity management , as one aspect of diversity management discussed earlier was the auditing of policies to ensure fair treatment of all employees .

Inclusion has been identified as carrying the advantage of enhancing employee confidence [1, 76]. Enhancing confidence has the potential to raise an individual’s perception of their ability, which can positively impact performance. In addition to enhancing performance, increased confidence may increase the likelihood of the individual believing they are capable of going beyond their required tasks, that is undertaking Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCBs), which are supra-role behaviours [1].

Inclusion can also result in enhanced morale, feelings of support and job satisfaction [1]. Interestingly, job satisfaction, engagement and a supportive work environment have been previously cited in the literature as antecedents of OCBs. If inclusion results in these factors, it is therefore again arguably evident that a relationship exists between inclusion and OCBs [1]. It is also arguable that perceiving higher levels of support will increase employee loyalty and commitment to the organisation, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will perform in a manner that exceeds role requirements, perhaps in an effort to reciprocate for the support and increased levels of morale emanating from the organisation.

In a similar vein, a further resultant factor emanating from perceived inclusion concerns increased commitment [1, 76], whether to the job or organisation and enhanced productivity, which are again likely to enhance performance [1]. Additionally, increased commitment has the potential to see reduced absenteeism and turnover levels, allowing for a stability in the workplace , and savings through reduced recruitment and selection costs.

Inclusion can also result in increased knowledge transfer , group cohesion and a more positive group climate , thus, a better work environment [76]. Increased knowledge transfer may pave the way for smoother inter- and cross-departmental functioning, enhancing business operations. Improved group cohesion and a positive group climate will likely assist in the creation of a team culture, which is identified as a factor contributing to perceived inclusion later in this chapter, as well as potentially improving overall group performance .

Lockwood [14] simply summates the above arguments in favour of inclusion by proposing that it serves to generate opportunities for growth, flexibility, and adaption in the marketplace. Sabharwal [68] additionally summates, more generally than above, that inclusion can result in improved organisational performance . Organisations are cautioned, however, that in order to achieve enhanced performance via inclusion, leadership which is both dedicated to fostering inclusion and willing to empower employees in a manner by which they can influence work decisions is necessary. Indeed, Shore et al. [81] also contend that organisations must have leadership dedicated to fostering inclusion at all organisational levels. Furthermore, Davidson and Ferdman [69] deem the development of an organisational culture of inclusion the responsibility of every organisational member, also proposing that if individuals expect inclusion, they must also learn how to provide it. Organisations are cautioned that inclusion efforts are hampered when employees perceive other employees through the lens of oversimplified, negative stereotypes, and when interpersonal interactions are perverted by status dynamics [82].

Consequently, introducing diversity management practices which are specifically targeted at improving the situation of historically disadvantaged groups will likely fail to foster true inclusion [83]. One reason for such an argument is that diversity management initiatives which focus on disadvantaged groups cause resentment on the part of those who do not benefit from the diversity practices, and potentially also exacerbates existing stereotypes [84]. Nishii [83] posits that as organisations increasingly look to innovation to foster long-term success and growth, it is of critical importance that the downside of diversity is addressed. In particular, Nishii [83] suggests that solutions that make productive debate possible, while also enhancing cooperation and learning are required.

An important starting point for such solutions is presented by inclusive climates, which minimise divisive conflict by minimising structural inequalities, assimilation and exclusionary decision-making. Nishii’s [83] argument, indeed much of the proceeding section, is supported by Sabharwal [68], who states that Organizational Inclusive Behaviours (that is, behaviours which create inclusion) can be summated under three concepts. Those three concepts are suggested to be commitment from top leadership to foster inclusion, the ability to influence organisational decisions, and fair treatment. Further discussion on fostering or developing inclusion is presented in the following, penultimate section of this chapter.

Inclusion: How to Get There

Stemming from a 2015 study by this chapter author, a number of contributory factors can assist organisations in developing a sense of inclusion, as diagrammatically represented in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Factors contributing to inclusion . Source Author (O’Donovan 2017)

Full size image

As identified at the beginning of this chapter, it is recommended that organisations begin their inclusion efforts via diversity management initiatives. A tenet of this chapter is that organisations should move beyond traditional diversity management programmes towards an inclusionary approach to diversity. Nonetheless, there is merit in beginning with diversity management. Diversity management facilitates the opening of a dialogue in organisations concerning what diversity is, the potential advantages it affords organisations, and the identification of challenges to workforce diversity . Moreover, via the diversity training elements of diversity management , organisations can encourage employees to consider what makes them different, but not for the purpose of negatively highlighting differences , rather with a focus on how those differences can be harnessed in the workplace . Similarities among individuals who appear quite different may also be focussed upon, thereby increasing understanding and harmony, and enhancing a shared sense of purpose.

Diversity management has the potential, however, to be divisive, regardless of original intent. The process may result in attempting to understand employees by “assigning” them to, and viewing them in light of assignment to, a particular grouping, for example female, millennial or knowledge worker. This rigid categorisation has the potential to ignore other aspects of an individual’s diversity , potentially resulting in individuals feeling marginalised. For example, it does not follow that a “female” identifies as female, nor does it follow that a millennial worker shares common characteristics with fellow millennials. It is recommended, therefore, that while beginning with diversity management initiatives, organisations do so with the ultimate aim of creating inclusion .

As discussed earlier, inclusion concerns holistically viewing the employee, integrating both their similarities and differences into the fabric of the organisation. Essentially, employees are allowed to be their full selves while in the workplace. Moreover, differences and similarities are leveraged to improve organisational functioning and performance. Organisations are advised to take such an approach to diversity, and, more generally, talent management . It was noted earlier that inclusion occurs at both the individual and organisational level, and is a contextual, individual, transient concept. Creating and maintaining inclusion is, therefore, an ongoing process. Regardless, organisations can capitalise on the identification of a number of contributory factors assisting in the perception of inclusion.

The first contributory factor that organisations can develop, encourage and maintain concerns teams . In particular, having a sense of team was strongly identified by O’Donovan [1] as important for inclusion , therefore, organisations should identify ways in which a team orientation can be created. Organisations may, for example schedule team meetings or briefings, or encourage inter- or cross-departmental problem solving.

A second contributory factor concerns stability . In particular, the related concepts of familiarity in a unit or department and the existence of relationships in the workplace , both of which speak to stability , have been established as important. Organisations are therefore advised to assist, or allow, individuals to form and maintain relationships in the workplace . In addition, while rotation has been long proposed as a potential combatant to low motivation or fatigue as a result of monotony, organisations are, for the purpose of developing inclusion , advised to avoid unnecessary, frequent, transfers across departments. If such transfers are necessary, organisations may find it useful to encourage, and facilitate, cross-departmental relationship building, whether by formal or informal means, in an attempt to create familiarity throughout the organization.

Employee engagement also carries significance for inclusion . In particular, perceiving respect from colleagues, in addition to being willing, and believing there exists the freedom, to offer opinions on work-related matters, are further contributory factors. Believing oneself to be respected and free to engage in dialogue in the workplace are elements of employee engagement, again reinforcing the argument in the proceeding section that a link exists between engagement and inclusion. Consequently, organisations should, in conjunction with inclusionary efforts, also focus on employee engagement. Indeed, as concepts, both engagement and inclusion arguably support and reinforce each other.

The final contributory factor identified in Fig. 3 concerns management . In particular, management have a role to play in creating inclusion, much like they do in championing diversity. While what constitutes inclusion is subjective, and therefore seems different to every individual, management have a role to play in creating a sense of inclusion . If managers are seen to behave inclusively, this symbolises the importance of inclusion throughout the organisation. Similarly, if management are seen to visibly encourage individuals to engage their differences to assist in their work, this symbolises acceptance and valuing of differences. More generally, managers have a role to play in reinforcing organisational culture, thus have a role to play in reinforcing a culture of inclusion. Managers can act as driving forces, or champions, for the other contributory factors identified and discussed above, specifically, a sense of team, stability and employee engagement. These factors, whether one, all, a combination, or in conjunction with other individual factors, contribute towards perceived inclusion.

Conclusion

Perceived inclusion results in a number of positive outcomes, which organisations should display an interest in, primarily as these outcomes carry the potential to enhance performance. Inclusion is more likely than the mere presence of diversity , or than diversity management, to result in capitalisation on the benefits associated with diversity. Moreover, inclusion can enhance employee confidence , presenting the potential of raising an individual’s perception of their ability, which can positively impact performance and increase the likelihood of the individual believing they are capable of going beyond their required tasks. Inclusion can also result in enhanced morale, feelings of support and job satisfaction, which can improve performance and reduce absenteeism, and speaks to the importance of integrating inclusion and employee engagement initiatives. Further resultant factors emanating from perceived inclusion concern increased commitment , whether to the job or organisation, and enhanced productivity, which are again likely to enhance overall organisational performance .

Finally, it is strongly recommended that organisations develop an organisational culture which truly values, and espouses the benefits of, inclusion in the workforce. This culture can be used as a continual reinforcer of diversity and inclusion efforts. To begin doing so, organisations can make use of the contributory factors identified in this chapter. The factors contributing to perceived inclusion presented in this chapter are far from complicated, making them relatively easily replicable across organisations of different sizes and structures in different industries. Finally, organisations are encouraged to create a culture that enables an open dialogue between employees and managers. The subjective nature of inclusion means that the best placed individuals to tell us what inclusion looks like are the organisation’s employees. It is time to move past diversity management , and focus on inclusion; Diversity Management 2.0 .