Perspectives in HRD-Crossing the Boundaries of Employee Engagement and Workplace Diversity and Inclusion: Moving HRD Forward in a Complicated Sociopolitical Climate

Abstract

This essay explores the intersection of employee engagement and workplace diversity and inclusion. The current trend of organizations fusing these two concepts has provided motivation to examine the (dis)connection between theory and practice. This essay advances the perspectives of practitioners, as well as a critical framework used to discuss implications for HRD and additional research. In the current sociopolitical climate, this topic of inquiry is potentially relevant to address racism, xenophobia, and other forms of prejudice in the workplace. The review of literature points to organizational performance as a shared objective of employee engagement and workplace diversity and inclusion. Therefore, I argue that organizational performance could be a catalyst for understanding and leveraging the personal interests of employees through joint employee engagement and diversity initiatives.

Keywords

Employee engagement diversity and inclusion organizational performance

Should we divide or connect lines between employee engagement (EE) and diversity and inclusion (D&I)? In academia, both EE and D&I are broad areas of interest that extend the boundaries of disciplines related to management and organizational studies (Shuck, 2011; Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Ferdman, 2014). However, recent accounts offered by practitioners challenge the distinction between employee engagement and D&I, and claim one cannot be successful without the other (Clarke, 2015). Based on this perspective, in order to engage the interest of all employees, it is important that all employees feel included, despite any differences across the organization. This essay reviews the overlapping and intersecting themes of EE and D&I through a critical perspective and discusses the implications for human resource development (HRD) and the sub–discipline of critical human resource development (CHRD). Ultimately, this essay emphasizes the growing necessity to include discussions of D&I in the workplace and to integrate those discussions with other key organizational functions and concepts such as EE. These discussions are even more vital during a time when traditional sociopolitical conventions have been so severely disrupted. The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States and the success of the UK referendum to leave the European Union are among the most pressing examples. These particular incidents have been accused of igniting a visceral resurgence of racism and xenophobia (Bourn, 2016; Simons, 2017), as well as other forms of prejudice. The impact of these sociopolitical affairs has the potential to impact how individuals acknowledge and respect one another's differences. The workplace is a microcosm of these larger issues.

Employee Engagement and Diversity and Inclusion: Asynchronous or Synchronous?

Some scholars suggest D&I has an impact on EE but that the two concepts are separate considerations for organizations (Downey, Werff, Thomas, & Plaut, 2015), making them asynchronous. Others claim EE and D&I carry the same objective (Clarke, 2015) and are indefinitely and undeniably synchronous organizational concerns. In support of the former, Jones and Harter's (2005) analysis of dyad relationships between employees and supervisors revealed dyads with different racial identities have different outcomes of EE. Dyads who identified with the same race demonstrated greater involvement and intention to continue their tenure with their employer, while interracial dyads expressed lower levels of engagement and commitment to their organization. These findings stresses the importance of understanding cross–cultural relationships between employees and their employer in order to enhance EE. Similarly, Avery, McKay, Wilson, and Tonidandel's (2007) research on subordinates and supervisors, in regard to racial identity, workplace support, and absenteeism showed, “Blacks reported significantly more absences than their White counterparts, but this difference was significantly more pronounced when employees believed their organizations placed little value on diversity” (p. 875). work of Avery et al. (2007) demonstrates how minorities’ perception of lack of support can negatively influence their commitment to their employer. The findings also indicate minorities who believe they are supported by their colleagues and supervisors are more likely to be engaged. More recently, researchers have demonstrated links between specific D&I concerns such as age (James, McKechnie, & Swanberg, 2011) and spirituality (Saks, 2011) and EE, as well as the capacity of D&I training to foster trust in the workplace, with positive impacts on EE (Downey, Werff, Thomas, & Plaut, 2015).

Conversely, those who believe D&I and EE are overlapping concepts have a more general perspective that is still being explored and defined. conversations are fairly recent developments and appear to take place mostly in forums for practitioners (Clarke, 2015; Simons, 2017). the early 2000s, more than seventy–five percent of Fortune 1000 companies publicly expressed their commitment to D&I initiatives (Daniels, 2001). Diversity and inclusion specialist positions began surfacing in large corporations and these individuals were often tasked with identifying trends and submitting their expert opinion. DiversityInc, Wall Street Journal, Involvement and Participation Association (IPA), and Gallup Business Journal are a few among many practitioner–based platforms that have addressed the intersections of D&I and employee engagement (Anand, 2013; Whiston & Robison, 2014; Clarke, 2015; Simons, 2017). an article titled “Employee Engagement and Workplace Diversity and Inclusion – Two Sides of the Same Coin,” Nita Clarke, director of IPA, focused on the inter–relationship of the two concepts. In the article, Clarke (2015) encouraged organizations to move away from looking at D&I and EE as mutually exclusive., Clarke advised employers to merge the two agendas. and Robison (2014) illustrated a similar understanding in their case study of Fifth Third Bank's organizational development initiative presented in the Gallup Business Journal. bank used an integrated approach by concurrently focusing on D&I and EE, which resulted in a positive response from both employees and customers., these examples challenged the initial approach to D&I and EE, which emphasized a separateness of the concepts—D&I was about broadening the horizons and reach of the organization while EE was about getting the most out of employees, usually without thinking about differences that could impact the reality and perception of engagement.

To address this disconnect, Simons (2017) suggested changes in how D&I is practiced will continue to ensue, with a greater focus on integrating white male perspectives into diversity discussion as a means to engage all employees. In his Wall Street Journal article, “In Trump Age, Taking a Different Tact on Workplace Diversity,” Simons (2017) expressed there is an opportunity to expand our understanding of diversity. Although I agree it is critical for each individual to feel engaged and participate in D&I initiatives, I believe there is another overlooked issue. Simon's proposition to reframe how we look at diversity to include and engage White men is a demonstration of power and privilege. Based on Simons’ recommendation, the organization has authority to change the focus and direction of how diversity is facilitated and practiced, and who benefits from D&I. Shuck, Collins, Rocco, and Diaz (2016) explained organizations control and define the conditions of engagement, on account of their power and privilege. This becomes an issue when organizations misuse their authority to reinforce their dominance, and neglect the diverse interests and backgrounds of their employees. In this example, Simons suggested shifting the focus of diversity initiatives to ensure White men are not excluded from a topic that is increasingly gaining notoriety in research and practice. This highlights the “business case” of D&I and takes away from its mission to address cultural, ethnic, and racial conflict in the workplace (Byrd, 2007). Dismissing this traditional approach to diversity becomes focused on who is represented in the discussion, instead of who is marginalized and excluded by unintentional and intentional acts of power and privilege. Thus, using recent socio–political affairs as a motivation to engage White men is not the issue. The issue is changing the purpose and direction of D&I to cater to White men.

Employee Engagement in HRD

Although EE is commonly discussed in organizations, the concept of EE remains ambiguous (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Shuck, 2011). Fields in management and organizational studies have established an interest in EE, but research on EE is relatively new and limited (Shuck, 2011). This creates a disconnection between theory and practice. Consequently, practitioners have created their own agenda and approach to meet the demands of EE in the workplace, without referring to research.

In the context of HRD, Brad Shuck has submitted valuable scholarship that seeks to understand and explain the different perspectives on EE. Shuck and Wollard (2010) analyzed numerous foundational aspects of EE and found several variables that reflect the multiple approaches to EE, which include but are not limited to: (a) whether the employee or employer takes responsibility to initiate engagement, (b) the different types of engagement (cognitive, emotional, and behavioral), and (c) whether the purpose of EE is for individuals’ satisfaction, safety, and involvement with work, the organization's investment in business outcomes, or both. The variation in EE is further complicated across disciplines, but Shuck and Wollard (2010) provided clarity by exploring EE through an integrative approach, beginning with the definition: “An individual employee's cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (p. 103). Essentially, EE is an effort to recognize employee's individual concerns and interests related to the organization's mission and performance.

This employee–centered orientation to EE draws attention to ways in which organizations can extend an effort to understand the personal interests and background of employees, with hopes of building a connection between the employee and the employer. But why would an employer invest in the personal interests of their employees? Shuck, Reio, and Rocco (2011b) addressed this inquiry in an empirical study across seven industries and found job fit, affective commitment, and psychological climate have a significant correlation to EE, but affective commitment and EE emerged as the strongest predictors of employees’ intentions to stay or leave their company. This particular study highlights the importance of goals and value alignment associated with EE and affective commitment. Other studies have revealed similar findings by examining additional variables related to EE and turnover, such as the connection between EE and participation in HRD practices (Shuck, Twyford, Reio, & Shuck, 2014), EE and well–being (Shuck & Reio, 2013), and EE and workplace climate (Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011a). These studies illustrate the impact EE has on an employee's intentions to stay or leave their organization. When employees demonstrate intentions to leave their employer, it can be very costly for the organization, resulting in decreased productivity and corporate financial performance (Huselid, 1995). Each of the studies mentioned above showed a positive relationship between EE and retention. In addition, research suggests EE has implications on workplace learning and performance (Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi, & Nimon, 2013). In a continued journey to ask why the personal interests of employees matter to the organization, it becomes more apparent that a performative notion is incorporated into EE. The performative motivation embedded within EE is also relevant to conversations involving D&I initiatives.

Diversity and Inclusion in HRD

Similar to EE, D&I scholarship is steadily growing, but includes an assortment of different approaches and perspectives (Roberson, 2006; Ferdman, 2014). Within the field of HRD, Marilyn Byrd has led discussions concerning D&I, and how it should be reflected in the workplace (Byrd 2007a; Byrd & Stanley, 2009; Byrd & Scott, 2014). Byrd's work on D&I provides additional insight into why employers should acknowledge the personal interests and backgrounds of their employees. More specifically, Byrd's representation of social identity diversity (Byrd, 2014) and intersectionality (Byrd & Stanley, 2009) helps explain how diversity and inclusion can impact organizational performance (Byrd, 2007b).

Beginning with social identity diversity, Byrd (2014) encouraged both practitioners and scholars to realize individuals hold multiple identities, and the compilation of different identities foster the opportunity to optimize connections in the workplace. Through the concept of social identity presented by Reicher, Spears, and Halsem (2010), Byrd emphasized the connections individuals hold to the social world, which offer the prospect to identify similarities and differences with others (Byrd, 2014b). This orientation to social identity supports a general understanding of diversity, which is defined as “varying ways that people differ” (Byrd, 2014, p. 516). The combination of the two terms, social identity and diversity, create the foundation for social identity diversity. This form of diversity can cultivate an environment that appreciates similarities and values differences. But, in order to celebrate diversity, the organization must first recognize the different social identities to establish connections. This requires an employer to discover the personal interests and backgrounds of their employees, which are often tied to social identities, and may in some cases be visible (and therefore immediately known) and in other cases invisible (requiring employee disclosure).

To further support social identity diversity, Byrd (2014) utilized Crenshaw's (1989) concept of intersectionality, specifically at the junction between race, gender, and social class. Intersectionality underscores the idea that individuals are not confined to one category, but may concurrently experience multiple forms of discrimination. Byrd and Stanley (2009) demonstrated the idea of intersectionality through the experience of African American women in leadership. By acknowledging the experience of African American women in leadership, Byrd and Stanley introduced HRD to the complexity of holding a position of privilege while still being oppressed through race and gender. Collins (2012) recognized a similar dynamic when addressing the lack of (openly) lesbian, gay, and bisexual voices in leadership. In each of these cases, employees who experience oppression through exclusion and marginalization are potentially subjected to feeling undervalued. The reality of being discounted and relegated to a lower status can lead to unfavorable outcomes. Estes and Wang (2008) claimed unintentional and intentional acts of workplace incivility, such as discrimination, disregard, or rejection can negatively impact individual and organizational performance, and contribute to employee turnover. In a DiversityInc article, diversity and inclusion senior executive Rohini Anand (2013) also forewarned employers that ignoring diversity not only disengages employees, but it is also a lost opportunity to leverage a business strategy. Again, this gives reason for employers to be mindful of the personal interests and backgrounds of their employees, and to create an environment where employees can bring the whole self to work. Being cognizant and respectful of D&I related to race, gender, social class, and other identities is essential to creating an environment where employees can make connections (Byrd, 2014). These connections can help facilitate EE and influence organizational performance.

Theoretical Framework and HRD Implications

Whether or not EE and D&I should be addressed in sequence or concurrently, they both play a critical role in HRD. As minorities continue to increase their socioeconomic mobility, they access occupations and ranks unbeknown to their local communities (Pattillo, 2013). breakthrough accomplishments warrant celebration, but they are occasionally met with misunderstandings and isolation. a field that helps facilitate the effectiveness and efficiency of people and processes in organizations (Swanson & Holton, 2001), learning how to overcome barriers to achieve optimal performance is central to individual and organizational development., understanding how individuals and organizations develop must include all persons, not simply the majority or those who hold positions of power.

Recent approaches to global diversity with President Trump's US–Mexico border and Muslim travel ban, and Britain's decision to leave the European Union have given reason to refresh and expand our awareness of racism and xenophobia (Borun, 2016). Elliot and Stewart (2017) argued the longstanding existence of racism and xenophobia reflects a failure in education and development, which demands the attention of HRD. The consequences of being disengaged in these issues can further proliferate our current diversity and exclusion problems.

As advocated in critical human resource development (CHRD), it is important to question notions of power and privilege that exclude and marginalize minorities (Bierema & Callahan, 2014). a recent example of CHRD research, Shuck et al. (2016) critically explored how power and privilege is manifested in EE by calling attention to inequalities in the workplace that impact access, status, credibility. The authors alluded to similar issues expressed in this essay. They discussed how individuals of privilege seek to maintain power, at the expense of disregarding the concerns of minorities. The article explained “…positions of privilege rarely recognize, let alone discuss, their powerful advantageous state and will often argue for maintaining the status quo…[while] those without an advantaged position know better than to bring it up or risk facing the consequences” (Shuck et al., 2016, p. 224). Fortunately, HRD is a field equipped with several areas of interest that can help uncover and deconstruct barriers to inequality in the workplace. and D&I both appear to have an investment in understanding the personal interests and backgrounds of employees. extent of their similarities and differences remains underexplored. As research continues to mature in EE and D&I scholarship, it may be beneficial to investigate how these two concepts work together to create a better lived experience for employees and employers.

Conclusion

Employee engagement and diversity and inclusion both remind us that social issues spill into our educational and professional spaces. As an intermediary that holds the interest of both the organization and its employees, HRD is in a position to make a transformative impact on EE and D&I research and practice. CHRD provides a suitable platform to identify, reflect, and take action against practices that perpetuate the marginalization of minorities. Employee engagement and D&I aim to achieve a similar objective. The combination of these initiatives can potentially leverage organizational performance by acknowledging and valuing the diversity among employees through engagement and inclusion. Through this approach, D&I is more than an attempt to protect the interests of minorities. D&I is a frame of mind that helps challenge and overcome individual and organizational barriers to establish and maintain mutually respectful relationships. Dismissing this general, yet critical feature of D&I calls attention to issues of power and privilege. Additional research is required to understand the fusion of these two concepts. This essay offers a preliminary discussion to explore the question: How can employee engagement research and practice guide diversity and inclusion initiatives in the workplace? The answer to this question in HRD begins with how we define and utilize EE and D&I.

References

Anand

(2013, February 3). How diversity and inclusion drives employee engagement. DiversityInc. Retrieved from http://www.diversityinc.com/diversity–management/how–diversity–and–inclusion–drives–employee–engagement/

Avery

D. R.

, McKay

P. F.

, Wilson

D. C.

, & Tonidandel

(2007). Unequal attendance: The relationships between race, organizational diversity cues, and absenteeism. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 875–902. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.2007.00094

Bierema

, & Callahan

J. L.

(2014). Transforming HRD: A framework for critical HRD practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(4), 429–444. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314543818

Bourn

(2016). Global learning and Brexit. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 23, 188–199.

Byrd

M. Y.

(2007a). Educating and developing leaders of racially diverse organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(2), 275–279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1203

Byrd

M. Y.

(2007b). The effects of racial conflict on organizational performance: A search for theory. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 21(1–2), 13–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.10276

Byrd

M. Y.

, & Stanley

C. A.

(2009). Bringing the voices together. Advances in Developing Human Resources. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422309351817

Byrd

M. Y.

(2014). Diversity issues: Exploring “critical” through multiple lenses. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(4), 515–528. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314544297

Byrd

M. Y.

, & Scott

C. L.

(Eds.). (2014). Diversity in the workforce: Current issues and emerging trends. Routledge.

10.

Christian

M. S.

, Garza

A. S.

, & Slaughter

J. E.

(2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.2010.01203

11.

Clarke

(2015, June 2). Employee engagement and diversity and inclusion – Two sides of the same coin. Involvement and Participation Association. Retrieved from http://www.ipa–involve.com/news/employee–engagement–and–workplace–diversity–and–inclusion–two–sides–of–the–same–coin/

12.

Collins

J. C.

(2012). Identity matters: A critical exploration of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity and leadership in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11(3), 349–379. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312446810

13.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.

14.

Daniels

(2001, July 9). Too diverse for our own good. Fortune Magazine, 114, 116. Retrieved from http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/07/09/306541/index.htm

15.

Downey

S. N.

, Werff

, Thomas

K. M.

, & Plaut

V. C.

(2015). The role of diversity practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(1), 35–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12273

16.

Elliott

, & Stewart

(2017). What are the (C) HRD implications of Brexit? A personal reflection? Human Resource Development International, (20)1, 1–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2017.1237420

17.

Estes

, & Wang

(2008). Workplace incivility: Impacts on individual and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review (7)2, 218–240. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308315565

18.

Ferdman

(2014). Toward infusing diversity and inclusion as core elements of OD. OD Practitioner, 46(4), 44–46.

19.

Huselid

M. A.

(1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–672.

20.

James

J. B.

, McKechnie

, & Swanberg

(2011). Predicting employee engagement in an age–diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 173–196. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/job.681

21.

Jones

J. R.

, & Harter

J. K.

(2005). Race effects on the employee engagement–turnover intention relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2), 78–88.

22.

Pattillo

(2013). Black picket fences: Privilege and peril among the Black middle class. University of Chicago Press.

23.

Roberson

Q. M.

(2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273064

24.

Saks

A. M.

(2011). Workplace spirituality and employee engagement. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 8(4), 317–340. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2011.630170

25.

Simons

(2017, February 14). In Trump age, taking a different tact on workplace diversity. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/in–trump–age–taking–a–different–tack–on–workplace–diversity–1487080801

26.

Shuck

, & Wollard

(2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review 9(1), 89–110. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309353560

27.

Shuck

(2011). Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 304–328. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311410840

28.

Shuck

, & Reio

(2011). The employee engagement landscape and HRD: How do we link theory and scholarship to current practice? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 419–428. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311431153

29.

Shuck

, Reio

, & Rocco

(2011b). Employee engagement: An antecedent and outcome approach to model development. Human Resource Development International, 14, 427–445.

30.

Shuck

M. B.

, Rocco

T. S.

, & Albornoz

C. A.

(2011a). Exploring employee engagement from the employee perspective: Implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(4), 300–325. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591111128306

31.

Shuck

, Ghosh

, Zigarmi

, & Nimon

(2013). The jingle jangle of employee engagement: Further exploration of the emerging construct and implications for workplace learning and performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12(1), 11–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312463921

32.

Shuck

, Twyford

, Reio

T. G.

, & Shuck

(2014). Human resource development practices and employee engagement: Examining the connection with employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 239–270. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21190

33.

Shuck

, Collins

J. C.

, Rocco

T. S.

, & Diaz

(2016). Deconstructing the Privilege and Power of Employee Engagement: Issues of Inequality for Management and Human Resource Development. Human Resource Development Review, 15(2), 208–229. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316643904

34.

Swanson

R. A.

, & Holton

E. F.

(2001). Foundations of human resource development. Berrett–Koehler Publishers.

35.

Whiston

& Robison

(2014, July 8). Fifth Third Bank's journey: One of inclusion and engagement. Gallup Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/169016/fifth–third–bank–journey–one–inclusion–engagement.aspx