Introduction to the Special Topic Forum: Critical Discourse: Envisioning the Place and Future of Diversity and Inclusion in Organizations

Abstract

Management research has illustrated the critical importance of diversity and inclusion for organizational effectiveness. Although progress is evident towards building diverse and inclusive workplaces, challenges remain in both practical relevance and theoretical advancements. In this Special Topic Forum on the place and future of diversity and inclusion in organizations, we describe three important but often neglected areas of leadership and organizational studies: the multifaceted expressions of diversity, work relationships in diversity and inclusion, and diversity and inclusion at the organizational apex. In this introduction, we summarize the articles included in this Forum, and note that throughout the articles, the authors embark on an in-depth exploration of diversity and inclusion with a focus on these three under-developed areas of scholarship. To catalyze a critical discourse on the place and future of diversity and inclusion in contemporary organizations, here we review the important insights that the Forum’s authors provide. We then suggest opportunities for future theoretical and empirical work in the diversity and inclusion domain.

Keywords

diversity inclusion critical discourse

A focus on diverse and inclusive workplaces has enjoyed a prominent position in the management and business literature (Combs, Milosevic, Jeung, & Griffith, 2011; Hernandez, Avery, Volpone, & Kaiser, 2018; Roberson, Holmes, & Perry, 2017). From the early conceptualization and pioneering work of diversity advocates such as Taylor Cox (1991), Roosevelt Thomas (1990), and Ronald Takaki (1989), Elsie Cross (2000) and John Fernandez (1991), research and study of diversity and inclusion has migrated, matured, and morphed in many different directions and in itself has become diverse and inclusive (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995; Podsiadlowski & Hofbauer, 2014; Nkomo & Hoobler, 2014). From sometimes-fractured beginnings, conversations regarding diversity and inclusion have and continue to shape the narrative and discourse of organizational life for individuals and groups who remain marginalized in the workplace (Combs, 2003; Hekman, Johnson, Foo, & Yang, 2017; Mor Barak, 2013).

Despite progress toward building diverse and inclusive workplaces, challenges remain in both practical relevance and theoretical advancements. In this Special Forum on the Place and Future of Diversity and Inclusion, we describe several important and often neglected avenues in the study of diversity and inclusion. Specifically, we sought to explore avenues that elucidate the plurality of diversity forms and expressions, the multilevel and dynamic nature of diversity, and the role of relationships within the complexity of diversity and inclusion processes. Throughout the articles, the authors embark on an in-depth exploration of diversity with a focus on these three neglected elements of diversity and inclusion. The articles in this Special Topic Forum address issues ranging from understanding how different diversity expressions impact individual experiences in the workforce, to explicating different conditions under which relationships in the workplace may either hinder or enhance diversity and inclusion. These articles offer research on diversity and inclusion across organizational levels by examining how diversity throughout the organization and at the organizational apex impacts important outcomes.

As diverse populations continue to increase in workplaces across cultures and borders, organizational and community leaders increasingly seek to reap the diversity dividend (Bernstein, Crary, Bilimoria, & Blancero, 2015) and maximize the positive outcomes associated with diversity and inclusion. Previous research has examined a myriad of facets and concepts purported to facilitate organizational diversity and inclusion success. For example, scholars have examined the methods to create work environments that allow organizations to adapt to the inevitable influx of diverse groups (Chang, Milkman, Chugh, & Akinola, 2018; Guillaume, Dawson, Otaye-Ebede, Woods, & West, 2017); components that assist in recognizing and maximizing the benefits of diversity (Richard, Kirby, & Chadwick, 2013; Tuggle, Schnatterly, & Johnson, 2010); appropriate processes and procedures to create welcoming environments for diversity (Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013; Boekhorst, 2015; Nishii, 2013; Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Holcombe Ehrhart, & Sing, 2011); and incorporating inclusive principles and practices within workplaces (Boehm, Kunze, & Bruch, 2014; Chin, Desormeaux, & Sawyer, 2016).

In addition to these largely quantitative and macro level analyses of diversity and inclusion practices in organizations, other research focuses on the individual- and group-level experiences of women, minority individuals (including those with invisible minority identities such as disability status and sexual orientation), multiple identity salience, and/or religion. Today, more than ever, individuals intersect their professional and personal (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation) identities in the workplace (e.g., Berg, Grant, & Johnson, 2010; Robinson, Van Esch, & Bilimoria, 2017), and it is the intersection of their multiple group identities and organizational context that shapes minority members’ distinctive experiences in the workplace (Combs & Milosevic, 2015; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Additionally, research has considered how stigmatized individuals may suffer from emotional distress, exclusion, lack of voice and influence, and role pressures in climates where their identities are unseen, devalued, or marginalized (Bilimoria & Stewart, 2014, 2009; Pachankis, 2007).

Despite these insights, minority individuals continue to confront the harsh realization of prejudice, covert and overt manifestations of bias beliefs, and poor integration into the mainstream of organizational participation and leadership. This is, we argue, at least partially due to the lack of understanding of the multilevel (individual, group, and organizational) and plural (multiple and often intersectional) nature of diversity, diversity expression, and inclusive integration in organizations. Furthermore, the relational dynamics of diversity—as occurring in social interactions between individuals—have largely been underexamined in extant research. Within this context, and as we consider the juxtaposition of diversity and inclusion with contemporary organizational environments, two critical and probing questions exist, particularly, “Where are we?” and “Where are we going?” in terms of building knowledge about the complexity encompassed in more diverse and inclusive organizations.

For this Special Forum, we include quatitative, conceptual and empirical works that bring attention to and illuminate diversity at different levels of analysis. We sought to examine diversity and inclusion from the standpoint of individual experience, group interactions, and the influence of diversity as a strategic factor at the apex of organizational structure and governance. In the call for papers, we identified some important remaining issues related to the criticality of the questions we as diversity scholars ask and whether we go far enough to challenge current assumptions. In responding to these questions, articles in this issue raised more specific concerns, such as the expression of diversity at both individual and organizational levels as well as the important, albeit not always positive, role that relationships and networks play in building diverse and inclusive organizations.

To introduce this Special Issue, we first discuss the current challenges in diversity and inclusion research literature particularly focusing on the dynamics of diversity across organizational levels. We then discuss key insights that the articles from this issue provide. We conclude with a discussion of the opportunities for future research on diversity and inclusion.

Diversity and Inclusion Literature

Calls to move beyond numerical diversity ideologies (Bell, 2017), to understand the historical context of social ideologies and human resource practices (Nkomo & Hoobler, 2014), to build more inclusive organizations (Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Shore et al., 2011), and to illustrate the negative effects of discrimination on both individuals and organizations (Ganster & Rosen, 2013; Gee, Spencer, Chen, & Takeuchi, 2007; Ryff, Keyes, & Hughes, 2003) permeate the diversity and inclusion literature in the management and organization sciences. Thus far, a particular focus has been on organizational practice and policy directives that are espoused as ways to effectuate diversity and inclusion outcomes. Such practices and directives include top leadership support (Chin et al., 2016), recruiting/selection practices (Griffith & Combs, 2015; McKay, Avery, Tonidandel, Morris, Hernandez & Hebl, 2007), training (Combs & Luthans, 2007; Kalinoski, Steele-Johnson, Peyton, Leas, Steinke, & Bowling, 2013), managerial accountability (Basford, Offermann, & Behrend, 2014), mentoring for diverse organizational members (Tran, 2014), and establishing interventions and strategies for creating organizational climates that leverage and maximize the benefits of diversity (Bilimoria & Liang, 2012; Bilimoria & Singer, 2019; Köllen, 2016).

Moreover, definitional constraints can influence the type of research questions asked and explored in the diversity and inclusion space (Podsiadlowski & Hofbauer, 2014). The term diversity is not always clear and definitively specified. Traditionally, diversity processes targeted what are referred to as primary dimensions of diversity (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and religion). However, these identifications or targets of diversity have become, according to some researchers, stretched or diluted (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995). Contemporary approaches to diversity often include dimensions of difference that, at best “dance” on the edge of consideration as meaningful differences that profoundly matter in terms of the lived experiences of marginalization and the pernicious outcomes that occur. Indeed, Anand and Winter (2008, p. 356) state that “diversity has evolved into a rather amorphous field, where the very work itself invokes a variety of different meanings and emotional responses.” For example, a Deloitte business article refers to diversity of thought as the leading edge diversity frontier for the 21st century. According to the article, this new frontier

“provides the opportunity to reexamine diversity policies and ask what workplace diversity really should mean in the 21st century. . . . Smart organizations will realize that they now have an opportunity to introduce more powerful and nuanced approaches to operationalize the full range of human diversity: Namely, they can begin to harness diversity of thought.” (Diaz-Uda, Medina, & Schill, 2013, p. 2).

Additionally, seeking to give meaning to the term diversity on a global scale is fraught with differences and inconsistencies depending on country and geographic region (Jonsen & Özbilgin, 2014).

The concept of inclusion has emerged as a correlate to diversity, concerned more with ways that organizations can maximize the benefits of diversity by fostering and promoting full rights, access, and privileges of employment and advancement to all organizational members (Bennett, 2014). Similar to diversity, inclusion too suffers from unclear articulation (Bennett, 2014; Roberson, 2006). Indeed, Ferdman and Deane (2014) devote an entire volume to addressing the discourse around inclusion, its meaning, research findings, best practices, and implications for organizations.

In examining “best practices” for addressing discrimination, diversity, and inclusion in organizations, the strong emphasis on macro organizational approaches with limited regard for the interplay of micro-level interactions as well as interactions and events across organizational levels, becomes evident. Much of the micro literature has focused on how individuals navigate discriminatory terrain and protect themselves against prejudice and discriminatory acts. In this view, individuals experience reduced self-worth via identity threats triggered by covert discrimination (Ashforth, Kreiner, Clark, & Fugate, 2007) and work to minimize the negative consequences of the threats (Holmes, Whitman, Campbell & Johnson, 2016; Petriglieri, 2011).

Research thus far has also considered a variety of relational resources such as social support (Kram, 1983; Tharenou, 2001), mentorship (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000; Scandura, 1992), and strong leader relations (Ayman & Korabik, 2010). However, how work relationships are changing in the face of increasing diversity configurations, and whether the established relationships and networks are beneficial for building more diverse and inclusive organizations remains insufficiently explored. Indeed, in their analysis of organizational inclusion, Shore et al. (2011) identified assimilation as one element of inclusion that captures situations where minority individuals are treated as insiders only when they conform to the values of the current networks. In this view, when current networks are strong and uniform, they may impose pressures on minority individuals to either conceal or downplay stigmatized or devalued aspects of their identity in order to conform to the prevailing organizational culture. Therefore, unanswered questions remain about how relationships facilitate diversity in organizations and the conditions under which diverse individuals may express freely their intersectional identities.

Recently, strategic management literature has considered diversity and how diversity of top management teams (TMTs) may advance organizationally relevant outcomes (Boone & Hendriks, 2009; Buyl, Boone, Hendriks, & Matthyssens, 2011; Cannella, Park, & Lee, 2008; Nielsen & Nielsen, 2013). There is general agreement that TMT diversity is related to numerous positive outcomes such as organizational performance, knowledge accumulation, and innovation (Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993; Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996; Ling & Kellermanns, 2010). The assumption is that more diverse TMTs embody broader perspectives and facilitate outside-of-the-box discourse that improves decision making, creativity, and strategic thinking of the team (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991; Opstrup & Villadsen, 2015). However, the mechanisms and conditions under which TMT diversity enhances organizationally relevant outcomes are still vague. For example, are certain team cultures more conducive to performance in diverse TMTs? Furthermore, it is not fully clear yet how different organizational practices facilitate performance in more diverse TMTs.

The Articles: Direct and Nuanced Dynamics of Diversity and Inclusion

In this Special Top Forum, we sought articles that tackle research questions that critically advance the diversity and inclusion dialogue in the management and organization sciences. We focused on articles that either challenge the current understanding or provide an understudied perspective on diversity and inclusion. As such, we hoped to broaden extant dialogue and identify avenues for future research in the diversity and inclusion domain. In the following sections, we discuss the main insights of the articles included in this Special Issue along three emerging themes: multifaceted diversity expression, the role of relationships in fostering diversity and inclusion outcomes in organizations, and the dynamics and outcomes of diversity at the organizational apex. In the next section, we provide summaries of each article grouping them based on their connections to our overarching and subthemes. The Co-Editors note that the order in which articles are discussed in this introduction differs from the publication order of the articles. Our purpose for the Introduction presentation and order is to provide context for the contribution of each article and alignment with the focus of the Special Topic Forum. We appreciate the work and effort of each contributor.

Multifaceted Diversity Expression

As complex and multifaceted phenomena, diversity and inclusion in organizations manifest in many ways and individuals might express and experience them uniquely. Recent studies have embraced the multifaceted nature of diversity by recognizing multiple identities that individuals hold, with each of those identities potentially creating experiences of discrimination and preventing individuals from exhibiting their whole selves (Combs & Milosevic, 2015; Slay & Smith, 2011). Several of the articles specifically addressed the complexity embedded in the intersection of multiple identities as well as issues related to the lack of opportunities to exhibit their authentic and whole selves at work. And they particularly center on how diversity expression in the workplace may result in liminal experiences (Ibarra & Obodaru, 2016) in attempting to integrate professional identities with salient personal identities. Ibarra and Obodaru (2016) suggest that liminal experiences are states of cognitive and psychological dissonance in identity formation and resolution that can have significant impact on career development and advancement outcomes. Such is the case when individuals find themselves in environments where highly salient personal identities and organizational prescriptions for professional identities collide. Several of the articles in this issue address this diversity and inclusion concern.

The Anderson, Ahmad, King, & Gilrane article “Subtle and Overt Behaviors Toward Ethnic Minority Leaders and the Moderating Role of Competence” exposes the biases held against leaders based on their racial/ethnic backgrounds. The results of an experiment measuring authentic reactions to African American, Asian American, Middle Eastern American, and White male leaders revealed the unique stereotypes held about each racial/ethnic group and the differentiating effects of providing information about competence. For example, Asian American leaders were rated more negatively in comparison to White and Middle Eastern American leaders, while African American leaders were rated less positively when information about competence was provided compared to when it was not. This article contributes to the Special Topic Forum collection by elaborating on the challenges specific racial/ethnic groups of minority individuals face in and through the interplay of their professional and personal minority identities, due to the biases and stereotypes held by others.

Dawson, Karl, and Peluchette’s article “Hair Matters: Toward Understanding Natural Black Hair Bias in the Workplace,” explores the experiences of Black women who embrace natural hairstyles in the workplace. In their qualitative analysis, the authors discovered that although the stigma concerning natural hairstyles may be decreasing due to recent popular events, and more women have been embracing natural hairstyles, the bias associated with it continues with significant negative individual outcomes. Study participants indicated that embracing natural hairstyles led them to be labeled as unprofessional or less attractive, which resulted in considerable pressure to conform to expectations of what is considered appropriate work appearance. These pressures resulted in feelings of frustration and belief that exhibiting their true self may harm their career opportunities. This article contributed to the Special Topic Forum by empirically illustrating the challenges minority individuals experience in their work roles when embracing their minority identity and behaving in authentic ways (Stryker & Burke, 2000).

The Role of Work Relationships for Diversity and Inclusion

Building an inclusive culture through supportive relationships and developed networks has been key to diversity management (Wasserman, 2014). Wasserman (2014) assessed relational interactions from a communications perspective where involved parties “jointly create meaning and share relational responsibility for clarity” (p. 129). The general agreement is that supportive relationships create safe environments for individuals to exhibit their whole selves without fear from “not fitting in.” Positive work relationships and effective contact experiences are also considered beneficial in helping minority individuals navigate organizational bureaucracy, in improving intergroup associations, and in establishing feelings and perceptions of belonging (Culture Amp, 2017; Gould, 2017; Hewstone & Swart, 2011; Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011; Wasserman, 2014). However, there are also remaining questions regarding how power differentials in work relationships contribute to the growing inequality and marginalization of minority individuals (Heaphy et al., 2018). Indeed, work relationships may play an important role in either transforming the organization toward inclusion or in reinforcing discriminatory cultures. The articles in this section of the Special Topic Forum address both the positive and negative sides of work relationship for diversity and inclusion.

In their article “White Allyship of Afro-Diasporic Women in the Workplace: A Transformative Strategy for Organizational Change,” Erskine and Bilimoria propose a model of how White allyship of Afro-Diasporic women can engender positive diversity and inclusion outcomes at the individual level (for allies and beneficiaries) and organizational level (e.g., through transforming the organization’s culture and improving equity in evaluation systems). They suggest that White allyship is a continuous process of reflecting on one’s privilege and acting to interrupt the status quo of Whiteness in the leadership of organizations in the United States. By discussing the differences in the allyship behaviors and motivations of White males and females, the authors offer a more nuanced discussion of diversity and inclusion dynamics in contemporary organizations, particularly as they affect the career development and leadership advancement of Afro-Diasporic women in the workplace.

Hideg and Shen’s article: “Why Still So Few? A Theoretical Model of the Role of Benevolent Sexism and Social Support in the Continued Underrepresentation of Women in Leadership Positions,” provides a theoretical framework to explain women’s continued underrepresentation in leadership positions by focusing on the role played by subtle biases. Bias in this context takes the form of benevolent sexism, which women experience in both their work and family relationships. Benevolent sexism refers to subjectively positive feelings (e.g., liking, warmth) afforded to gender role conforming women and the tendency to idealize and protect such women (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1997). The authors discuss that benevolent sexism occurs both in the workplace by managers and at home by intimate partners, and this can affect a woman’s advancement to leadership at the interpersonal level (e.g., women may receive less actual career support from managers and partners) and intrapersonal level (e.g., women may be less willing to seek out career support from managers and partners). This article’s contribution rests in the analysis and attention it brings to the insidious operation of benevolent sexism in work and nonwork relationships, and how women’s advancement to leadership may be compromised through this form of subtle bias.

The potentially negative impact of relationships is also discussed by Miller in the article, “Exploring the Crabs in the Barrel Syndrome in Organizations.” Miller presents a qualitative study that approaches the Crabs in the Barrel Syndrome (CBS) from the context of organizational structural influences that can produce and induce negative intragroup behaviors with significant detrimental outcomes for organizational life and advancement for minorities and women. CBS is described as negative intragroup behaviors resulting from competitive work environments where negative stereotypes of and prejudice toward women and minorities cause or contribute to behaviors that counter the in-group favoritism and support previously described in the literature. More specifically, Miller argues that minorities and women leaders experience penalties when exhibiting behaviors that value and promote diversity and inclusion (Hekman et al., 2017). These negative actions or penalties operate to limit the leader’s inclination to support aspiring intragroup members and thus result in the demonstration of CBS. The contribution of this paper to the Special Topic Forum centers on the need for organizations to attend to nuanced aspects of organizational climate (competition, low levels of diversity, stereotypes, bias) not only in intergroup interactions between majority/minority workers but also unproductive and negative intragroup (minority/minority) interactions as well.

Diversity and Inclusion Dynamics and Outcomes at the Organizational Apex

Recently, studies have expanded their focus from the experiences of minority employees to diversity dynamics of the top management teams (TMTs) in organizations. Although there is general agreement that diversity of TMTs is beneficial for the team and the organization, how diversity of the TMT may affect organizationally relevant outcomes is less clear. Arguably, there are additional factors and conditions that may either enable TMT diversity to positively impact firm performance or stifle it. For example, poor TMT culture may prevent minority individuals from speaking up and contributing to the discussion, thus weakening strategic decision processes despite having a diverse TMT (Tuggle et al., 2010). Furthermore, how diverse TMTs may affect their relevant organizational outcomes such as innovation is less well understood.

The article by Wu, Richard, and Zhang, “Top Management Team Surface-Level Diversity, Strategic Change, and Long-Term Firm Performance: A Mediated Model Investigation” examines the relationship between surface-level diversity dimensions of culture, age, and gender, and the frequency of strategic changes (i.e., diversification and refocusing) in internationally focused companies. Surface-level diversity has been distinguished from deep-level diversity in that surface-level refers to dimensions of diversity that are readily discernable and immutable such as race/ethnicity, gender, age, and so on, while deep-level diversity is represented in attitudes, beliefs, values, and so on, which are not readily recognizable and become evident though communication and direct interaction (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). The lack of surface-level diversity in the upper echelons of TMTs has heretofore, resulted in an investigation of the impact of functional backgrounds of TMT members rather than surfaced level dimensions, in this case age, gender, and culture (Eastern vs. Western samples). The contribution of this article to this Special Forum rests not only in its examination of the impact of TMT members culture, age, and gender on long-term firm performance, but also how these surface-level diversity variables contribute to diversity effects on firm performance in an international organization environment.

Bass’s article, “Top Management Team Diversity, Equality, and Innovation: A Multilevel Investigation of the Healthcare Industry” examines the role of women on TMT’s and their impact on firm’s innovation. Beyond numerical diversity, Bass analyzes compensation equality between members of the TMTs. She argues that female TMT members who perceive their contributions to be valuable to the team and the firm are more likely to be participative and collaborative thus contributing more to the firm innovative outcomes. Interestingly, the article suggests that organizational size plays an important role in the impact of TMT diversity on innovation such that in smaller TMTs relative to other firms, gender diversity is more impactful. This article contributes to the Special Topic Forum by answering the call for moving beyond numerical approaches to diversity and examining how different factors may stifle or enhance diversity impact within the context of TMTs.

Critical Essay: The Intersectional Dynamics of Leadership and Diversity

In the critical essay, “Leading as the “Other,” Thomas reflects on and assesses leadership experiences of members of marginalized groups in organizations. Specifically, she identifies several issues and probes unique circumstances faced by racial and ethnic minorities, and women as they encounter stereotypes, biases, and perceptions as leaders. As Thomas recognizes the value to organizations of leaders who are operating as “Others Within” (Collins, 1986), she also begs the question of the degree to which racial and ethnic minorities, and women contribute more than they benefit based on the contextual attributes of the organization in which their leadership experiences occur. She illuminates the “risky business” of the impact of leadership on racial and ethnic minorities and women. Thomas argues the potential ramifications of those leading as the “other” for physical and emotional well-being, negatively affected career trajectories, differential evaluation of work effectiveness, the recurrent necessity to manage majority impressions and expectations, and the continual need to monitor communication outcomes. The essay is particularly important to our understanding of the interplay of diversity and inclusion and the frameworks of leadership roles in contemporary organizational environments.

The Future of Diversity and Inclusion Research: Concluding Thoughts

Several themes emerge in this Special Topic Forum: the multifaceted expression of diversity, the role of relationships in fostering desired diversity and inclusion outcomes, and diversity and inclusion at the organizational apex. In this section, we highlight these themes and discuss what future research avenues emerge from the studies.

Individuals develop multiple identities in order to respond to complex demands of their contexts (Stryker & Burke, 2000). In this view, individuals develop identity standards over time, which represent the “set of (culturally prescribed) meanings held by the individual which define his or her identity in a situation” (Stryker & Burke, 2000, p. 287). In doing so, however, some identities are stigmatized in the sense that they are subject to negative stereotypes and prejudice, are socially devalued, and are used to establish power and status differentials across social and work situations (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, religion, LGBTQA + [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, and allies], nationality, disability status, etc.). Even with the recent increase in research on multiple identities and identity expression in the workplace, we still have relatively limited insights into the identity work that individuals engage in when faced with discrimination and prejudice.

Studies in this Forum suggest that individuals holding multiple personal and professional identities are proactive both in their expression of those identities and the work they are required to do in order to intersect their identities and enact the “whole self” in the workplace. This is a difficult task, as the studies suggest, because individuals frequently face stereotypes and prejudice in their identity work preventing them from owning and expressing their diverse identities. In doing so, the articles identify several important avenues for future research in the realm of multifaceted diversity expression.

For example, future research should examine the nuances of the contexts that support multifaceted diversity expression and how those contexts differ from others. This approach requires moving away from macro examination of organizational climates to understanding cultures socially constructed in the space between individuals (Alvesson, 2011; Dandridge, Mitroff, & Joyce, 1980; Smircich, 1983) and how interactions in the space between either hinder or strengthen opportunities for multifaceted diversity expression. Relatedly, multifaceted diversity expression is a complex process permeated with ambiguity and discontinuities. Therefore, future research should embrace alternative methods to explore how individuals navigate the complex process and express their intersected identities.

The idea that diversity and inclusion success for individuals and organizations rest in the ability of organizations to create and sustain conducive climates for employee thriving is developing into a profound reality (Combs & Milosevic, 2015; Ferdman & Deane, 2014). Organizations and researchers in analyzing why diversity and inclusion efforts often fail, are discovering that relationships matter a great deal in fostering work cultures where marginalized groups can flourish, and diversity and inclusion programs find meaning and purpose (Gallegos, 2014; Wasserman, 2014). Environments that promote and provide avenues for the development of positive and meaningful relationships between individual and employee groups are desperately needed.

Relationship development suggest an environment of collaboration and cooperation. The identify confirmation literature may provide insights for future research in creating relational work environments. Identify confirmation exists when there is congruence between individual’s social environments and their personal identities (Milton & Westphal, 2005); and identity confirmation has been shown to influence positive outcomes in social relationships (Polzer, Milton, & Swann, 2002). Future research could examine the use of identity confirmation process to position the benefits incorporated in Employee/Business Resource Groups and other diversity networks back to formal work units. Rather than sending the individual minority or female out of the work group to find support and sense of belonging, bring the identity confirmation process back into the organizational unit. The organization unit is where the person lives their work experiences. Therefore, the intimacy of the work unit/department should be a safe and supportive place for identity confirmation to take place and for relationship building to occur. Additionally, corollary research can examine how organizations can expand the traditional mentoring focus of Employee/Business Resource Groups and thereby reproduce their contribution to work related collaborations across functional areas. This would allow organizations to leverage their ability to drive the types of experiences in learning and caring that support and promote relationship building and belonging (Emelo, 2014).

As the allyship, crabs in a barrel, and leading as “other” articles suggest, the dynamics of diversity and inclusion in organizational interactions can be both positive and negative. Although diversity policies and explicit procedures are necessary, they are not sufficient in moving diversity consciousness and individual agency in enhancing diversity and inclusion outcomes. In a sense, the literature may have relied too heavily on policy edits to create and promote change in diversity and inclusion outcomes. Policies and procedures tend to be static representations of organizational focus, strategy, and objectives. A relational approach positions the diversity and inclusion interests as a living and breathing organizational framework. Gallegos (2014, p. 189) suggests the organizational members can be “supported in learning new ways of being and caring” that allows effective dialogue, mutually positive connections, and relationship formation.

Future research should also take into account the multilevel nature of diversity with a particular emphasis on strategic issues in diversity and diversity of the leadership across levels (not just at the TMT level). For example, diversity at higher levels may affect diversity at lower levels (and vice versa), as demonstrated preliminarily by research showing an association between the proportions of women on corporate boards of directors and women on top management (executive) teams (e.g., Bilimoria, 2006). What other relationships may be explored in the future among individual, group, and organizational levels of diversity and inclusion? And finally, we urge consideration of the breadth and depth of diversity and inclusion research in order to carefully assess its reach in challenging current knowledge of the more subtle and nuanced representation of established power dynamics, and in creating a more definitive discourse regarding organizational structures and their diversity and inclusion effects. In this regard, we encourage future conceptualization and modeling of the multi-level dynamics of diversity and inclusion through out the various levels of decision making reflecting both vertical and horizontal perspectives for diversity and inclusion effectiveness.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We especially thank Dr. Fred Luthans for his support for this Special Topic Forum for the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies and recognition of the importance of diversity and inclusion for oerganizational effectiveness. Our gratitude is offered to the following colleagues for their services as external reviewers for submissions. Your comments and suggestions through the review process were extremely helpful and greatly appreciated.

Lawrence Houston III

College of Business

Oregon State University

Lei Huang

Raymond J Harbert College of Business

Auburn University

Karen Landay

Culverhouse College of Business

University of Alabama

David M. Kaplan

John Cook School of Business

St. Louis University

Angela K. Miles

School of Business

North Carolina Central University

Shovna Tripathy

Fogelman College of Business

University of Memphis

Sabrina Volpone

Leeds School of Business

University of Colorado Boulder

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Gwendolyn M. Combs, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Management at the College of Business, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She conducts research, teaches, and consults with organizations in the areas of human resource management policy and diversity and inclusion programming. She is recognized for her scholarship and public service, and has served as an expert witness for human resource management and employment equity litigation. She can be reached at gcombs2@unl.edu.

Ivana Milosevic, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Management at the College of Charleston. She teaches in the area of organizational behavior and her research interests include adaptability, leadership, and exploration of identity processes in complex organizations. She can be contacted at ivana.a.milosevic@gmail.com.

Diana Bilimoria, Ph.D. is KeyBank Professor and Professor and Chair of Organizational Behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Her research and teaching focus on gender and diversity in organizational leadership and governance, and organizational transformation. She has received awards for her scholarship, teaching and service, and is an advisor to executives in a variety of organizations. She can be reached at Diana.Bilimoria@case.edu.

References

Allen

T. D.

Eby

L. T.

Poteet

M. L.

Lentz

Lima

(2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127-136.

Alvesson

(2011). Organizational culture, meaning, discourse, and identity. In Ashkanasy

N. M.

Wilderom

C. P. M.

Peterson

M. F.

(Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 11-28). London, England: Sage.

Anand

Winter

M. F.

(2008). A retrospective view of corporate diversity training: From 1964 to the present. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 356-372.

Ashforth

B. E.

Kreiner

G. A.

Clark

Fugate

(2007). Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 149-174.

Ayman

Korabik

(2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65, 157-170.

Basford

T. E.

Offermann

L. R.

Behrend

T. S.

(2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 340-349.

Bell

M. P.

(2017). Diversity in organizations. Mason, OH: Thomson Southwestern.

Bennett

J. M.

(2014). Intercultural competence: Vital perspectives for diversity and inclusion. In Ferdman

B. F.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 155-176). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Berg

J. M.

Grant

A. M.

Johnson

(2010). When callings are calling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science, 21, 973-994.

10.

Bernstein

R. S.

Bilimoria

(2013). Diversity perspectives and minority nonprofit board member inclusion. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32, 636-653.

11.

Bernstein

R. S.

Crary

Bilimoria

Blancero

D. M.

(2015). Reflections on diversity and inclusion practices at the organizational, group, and individual levels. In Bendl

Bleijenbergh

Henttonen

Mills

A. J.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of diversity in organizations (pp. 109-126). London, England: Oxford University Press.

12.

Bilimoria

(2006). The relationship between women corporate directors and women corporate officers. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 47-61.

13.

Bilimoria

Liang

X. F.

(2012). Gender equity in science and engineering: Advancing change in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Bilimoria

Singer

L. T.

(2019). Institutions Developing Excellence in Academic Leadership (IDEAL): A partnership model to advance gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic STEM. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1108/EDI-10-2017-0209

15.

Bilimoria

Stewart

A. J.

(2009). “Don’t ask, don’t tell”: The academic climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender faculty in science and engineering. NWSA (National Women’s Studies Association) Journal, 21, 85-103.

16.

Bilimoria

Stewart

A. J.

(2014). Intersectional invisibility and the academic work experience of lesbian faculty. In De Welde

Stepnick

(Eds.), Disrupting the culture of silence: Women navigating the academy and making change (pp. 215-222). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

17.

Boehm

S. A.

Kunze

Bruch

(2014). Spotlight on age-diversity climate: The impact of age-inclusive HR practices on firm-level outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 67, 667-704.

18.

Boekhorst

J. A.

(2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54, 241-264.

19.

Boone

Hendriks

(2009). Top management team diversity and firm performance: Moderators of functional-background and locus-of-control diversity. Management Science, 55, 165-180.

20.

Buyl

Boone

Hendriks

Matthyssens

(2011). Top management team functional diversity and firm performance: The moderating role of CEO characteristics. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 151-177.

21.

Cannella

A. A.

Jr. Park

J. H.

Lee

H. U.

(2008). Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 768-784.

22.

Chang

E. H.

Milkman

K. L.

Chugh

Akinola

(2018). Diversity thresholds: How social norms, visibility, and scrutiny relate to group composition. Academy of Management Journal, 62, Article 1

23.

Chin

J. L.

Desormeaux

Sawyer

(2016). Making way for paradigms of diversity leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68, 49-71.

24.

Combs

G. M.

(2003). The duality of race and gender for managerial African American women: The implications of informal social networks on career advancement. Human Resource Development Review, 2, 385-405.

25.

Combs

G. M.

Luthans

(2007). Diversity training: Analysis of the impact of self-efficacy. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 91-120.

26.

Combs

G. M.

Milosevic

(2015). Workplace discrimination and the wellbeing of minority women: Overview, prospects, and implications. In Connerley

(Eds.), Handbook on the wellbeing of working women (pp. 17-31). New York, NY: Springer.

27.

Combs

G. M.

Milosevic

Jeung

Griffith

(2011). Ethnic identity and job attribute preference: The role of collectivism and psychological capital. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19, 5-16.

28.

Cox

Jr. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 34-47.

29.

Cox

T. H.

Lobel

McLeod

(1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative vs. competitive approaches in a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 827-847.

30.

Cross

E. Y.

(2000). Managing diversity: The courage to lead. Wesport, CT: Quorum Books.

31.

Culture Amp. (2017). 6 Ways to foster belonging in the workplace. Retrieved from https://hello.cultureamp.com/hubfs/1703-Belonging/Culture-Amp_6-ways-to-foster-belonging.pdf (accessed 12 December 2018).

32.

Dandridge

T. C.

Mitroff

Joyce

W. F.

(1980). Organizational symbolism: A topic to expand organizational analysis. Academy of Management Review, 51, 77-82.

33.

Diaz-Uda

Medina

Schill

(2013). Diversity’s new frontier: Diversity of thought and the future of the workforce. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/topics/talent/diversitys-new-frontier.html

34.

Emelo

(2014). Peer collaboration enhances diversity and inclusion. Association for Talent Development. Retrieved from https://www.td.org/magazines/td-magazine/peer-collaboration-enhances-diversity-and-inclusion

35.

Fernandez

J. P.

(1991). Managing a diverse workforce: Regaining the competitive edge. San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass.

36.

Ferdman

F. M.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.). (2014). Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

37.

Gallegos

P. V.

(2014). The work of inclusive leadership: Fostering authentic relationships, modeling courage and humility. In Ferdman

B. M.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 177-202). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

38.

Ganster

D. C.

Rosen

C. C.

(2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 39, 1085-1122.

39.

Gee

G. C.

Spencer

M. S.

Chen

Takeuchi

(2007). A nationwide study of discrimination and chronic health conditions among Asian Americans. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1275-1282.

40.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

41.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119-135.

42.

Gould

(2017). Do I belong here? Diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Retrieved from https://www.laneterralever.com/belong-diversity-inclusion-workplace/#gref

43.

Griffith

J. N.

Combs

(2015). Racial differences in job attribute preferences: The influence of ethnic identity and self-efficacy. Journal of Business Diversity, 15(2), 60-75.

44.

Guillaume

Y. R.

Dawson

J. F.

Otaye-Ebede

Woods

S. A.

West

M. A.

(2017). Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: What moderates the effects of workplace diversity? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 276-303.

45.

Haleblian

Finkelstein

(1993). Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 844-863.

46.

Hambrick

D. C.

Cho

T. S.

Chen

M. J.

(1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659-684.

47.

Harrison

D. A.

Price

K. H.

Bell

M. P.

(1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107.

48.

Heaphy

E. D.

Byron

Ballinger

G. A.

Gittell

J. H.

Leana

Sluss

D. M.

(2018). Introduction to special topic forum: The changing nature of work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 43, 558-569.

49.

Hekman

D. R.

Johnson

S. K.

Foo

M. D.

Yang

(2017). Does diversity-valuing behavior result in diminished performance ratings for non-White and female leaders? Academy of Management Journal, 60, 771-797.

50.

Hernandez

Avery

D. R.

Volpone

S. D.

Kaiser

C. R.

(2018). Bargaining while Black: The role of race in salary negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 581-592. doi:10.1037/apl0000363

51.

Hewstone

Swart

(2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 374-386. doi:10.1111/j.2044–8309.2011.02047.x

52.

Holmes

IV. Whitman

M. V.

Campbell

K. S.

Johnson

D. E.

(2016). Exploring the social identity threat response framework. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 35, 205-220.

53.

Ibarra

Obodaru

(2016). Betwixt and between identities: Liminal experience in contemporary careers. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 47-64.

54.

Jonsen

Özbilgin

(2014). Models of global diversity management. In Ferdman

Deane

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 364-390). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

55.

Kalinoski

Z. T.

Steele-Johnson

Peyton

E. J.

Leas

K. A.

Steinke

Bowling

N. A.

(2013). A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 1076-1104.

56.

Köllen

(2016). Lessening the difference is more–the relationship between diversity management and the perceived organizational climate for gay men and lesbians. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, 1967-1996.

57.

Konrad

A. M.

Linnehan

(1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Academy of Management Journal, 38, 787-820.

58.

Kram

K. E.

(1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608-625.

59.

Ling

Kellermanns

F. W.

(2010). The effects of family firm specific sources of TMT diversity: The moderating role of information exchange frequency. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 322-344.

60.

McKay

P. F.

Avery

D. R.

Tonidandel

Morris

M. A.

Hernandez

Hebl

M. R.

(2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60, 35-62.

61.

Milton

L. P.

Westphal

J. D.

(2005). Identity confirmation networks and cooperation in work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 191-212.

62.

Mor Barak

M. E.

(2013). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

63.

Nielsen

B. B.

Nielsen

(2013). Top management team nationality diversity and firm performance: A multilevel study. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 373-382.

64.

Nishii

L. H.

(2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1754-1774.

65.

Nkomo

Hoobler

J. M.

(2014). A historical perspective on diversity ideologies in the United States: Reflections on human resource management research and practice. Human Resource Management Review, 24, 245-257.

66.

Opstrup

Villadsen

A. R.

(2015). The right mix? Gender diversity in top management teams and financial performance. Public Administration Review, 75, 291-301.

67.

Pachankis

J. E.

(2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 328-345.

68.

Pascoe

E. A.

Smart Richman

(2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531-554.

69.

Petriglieri

J. L.

(2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academy of Management Review, 36, 641-662.

70.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

Wagner

Christ

(2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271-280. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001

71.

Podsiadlowski

Hofbauer

(2014). Envisioning “inclusive organizations.” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(3). doi:10.1108/EDI-01-2014-0008

72.

Polzer

J. T.

Milton

L. P.

Swann

W. B.

(2002). Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 47, 296-324.

73.

Purdie-Vaughns

Eibach

R. P.

(2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377-391.

74.

Ragins

B. R.

Cotton

J. L.

Miller

J. S.

(2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1177-1194.

75.

Richard

O. C.

Kirby

S. L.

Chadwick

(2013). The impact of racial and gender diversity in management on financial performance: How participative strategy making features can unleash a diversity advantage. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 2571-2582.

76.

Roberson

Q. M.

(2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31, 212-236.

77.

Roberson

Holmes

Perry

J. L.

(2017). Transforming research on diversity and firm performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 189-216.

78.

Robinson

M. J.

Van Esch

Bilimoria

(2017). Bringing transgender issues into management education: A call to action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16, 300-313.

79.

Ryff

C. D.

Keyes

C. L.

Hughes

D. L.

(2003). Status inequalities, perceived discrimination, and eudaimonic well-being: Do the challenges of minority life hone purpose and growth? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 275-291.

80.

Scandura

T. A.

(1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 169-174.

81.

Shore

L. M.

Randel

A. E.

Chung

B. G.

Dean

M. A.

Holcombe Ehrhart

Singh

(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262-1289.

82.

Slay

H. S.

Smith

D. A.

(2011). Professional identity construction: Using narrative to understand the negotiation of professional and stigmatized cultural identities. Human Relations, 64, 85-107.

83.

Smircich

(1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358.

84.

Stryker

Burke

P. J.

(2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284-297.

85.

Takaki

(1989). Strangers from different shore. New York, NY: Little, Brown.

86.

Tharenou

(2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 599-621.

87.

Thomas

(1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 107-117. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1990/03/from-affirmative-action-to-affirming-diversity

88.

Tran

N. A.

(2014). The role of mentoring in the success of women leaders of color in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22, 302-315.

89.

Tuggle

C. S.

Schnatterly

Johnson

R. A.

(2010). Attention patterns in the boardroom: How board composition and processes affect discussion of entrepreneurial issues. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 550-571.

90.

Wasserman

I. C.

(2014). Strengthening interpersonal awareness and fostering relational eloquence. In Ferdman

B. M.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 128-154). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.