What exactly is Inclusion??—?Defining, Measuring & Building Inclusion in Organizations

The Case for Inclusion

Did you know that increasing diversity in an organization could lead to negative organizational outcomes like more group conflict and worse organizational performance? How do we ensure that our employees & organization are better off as we become more diverse?

Inclusion Strategy expert, Vernā Myers said:

“Diversity is being invited to the party, Inclusion is being asked to dance.”

We know that both diversity and inclusion (D&I) are essential to achieving improved organizational outcomes in areas such as?financial performance ,?creativity , and?customer satisfaction . McKinsey also published a?3-part series demonstrating the business case of D&I. And yet, inclusion has received much less attention in research than diversity. Considering the?evidence ?showing that the benefits of having a diverse workforce are not likely to occur unless the organization has established an inclusive culture, organizations should strive for both diversity & inclusion. Simply put,?diversity only provides the?opportunity?for positive outcomes, but without inclusion, these outcomes become unlikely. Also, I want to acknowledge that the case for D&I is not solely for profit. Primarily, organizations have a moral obligation to strive for fairness and justice for all their employees, as well as the larger communities they impact.

I came across this?systematic review of the inclusion literature ?from Dr. Lynn Shore ?and colleagues which includes 40+ empirical inclusion studies. The authors identify themes of inclusion constructs throughout research, and develop a model for building an inclusive organization. Researchers have referred to their study as the most comprehensive review of the inclusion literature. In this article, I discuss (1) defining inclusion, (2) measuring inclusion and its outcomes, and (3) building an inclusive organization.

Differentiating Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging

Before diving into inclusion, let’s differentiate inclusion at a high level from the other elements to the everchanging Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) acronym.?RedThread Research ?lays out a definition for each component of one of the popular acronyms, DEIB:

A quick google search returned all the following variations to name a few: DEI, DEIB, D&I, JEDI, EDI. If you’re wondering how to decide which is right for your organization,?this article ?provides some thoughtful advice on how an organization can use what they are most committed to delivering on to settle on an acronym that best aligns to their values.

1.1) Defining Inclusion — overall

The most narrow and simple definition of inclusion might be “the presence of specific groups or individuals in a social system.” However, as?Ferdman (2017) ?notes, the simple presence of an individual in a social system is a view of inclusion that does not take into account whether or not that individual also experiences the freedom to express themselves in preferred ways.?Recent research ?seems to align with Ferdman’s (2014) more holistic description of inclusion within an organizational context:

In inclusive organizations, people of all identities and styles are empowered as full participants and contributors who feel and are connected to the larger collective without having to give up individual uniqueness, cherished identities, or vital qualities.

As is apparent in this description, inclusion is complex and multifaceted. The next section organizes different conceptualizations of inclusion into groupings that Shore and colleagues identified in their inclusion literature review.

1.2) Defining Inclusion — reviewing a range of inclusion constructs

Work Group Inclusion — The employee perceives that they are included when they strike a balance between belongingness (e.g., insider, decision making participation, information sharing) and uniqueness (e.g., welcomes different approaches, respects all cultural perspectives)

Leader Inclusion — Inclusiveness of the immediate supervisor or manager as perceived by individual employees. Leaders of diverse and inclusive organizations model comfort with diversity, alter rules for acceptable behaviors to ensure wide application, create opportunities for dialogue about differences, demonstrate an interest in learning, and are authentic about their own challenges and triumphs to encourage authenticity in others.

Perceived Organizational Inclusion — Individual-level perceptions of an employee’s inclusion in the overall organization. A large body of research measures this by looking at inclusion-exclusion ratings of three components; involvement in work groups, participation in the decision-making process, and access to information and resources.

Organization Inclusion Practices — A set of best practices that senior leadership has a role in establishing and supporting to enhance inclusion. Some examples of these inclusion practices include: develop a diverse talent pipeline, sponsor and recognize accomplishments, confront?microinequities ?&?microaggressions , leverage diversity to increase business performance (i.e., strategic insights from Employee Resource Groups, gain perspective into larger customer communities), develop accountability systems for inclusion that are embedded within the organization’s performance management system (i.e., performance rating/bonuses impacted by achievement of inclusion), train employees/leaders to develop the skills needed for inclusive behaviors, & encourage leaders to use peer support for inclusion efforts.

Inclusive Climate — A collective perception that there are expectations and norms that allow employees to behave authentically, influence decision making, and receive support in sharing views that are not part of the status quo.

1.3) Objective Data to Examine Inclusion

When considering what inclusion data will be analyzed, we can think about the measurement of inclusion in 2 different categories: (1) subjective perceptions of inclusion, & (2) objective behavioral measures of inclusion. I mainly focused on measuring perceptions of inclusion, or the “feeling of being included.”?Studies ?have demonstrated the important relationship between perceptions of inclusion and desirable organizational outcomes like creativity, thriving at work, and job performance. However, objective behavioral inclusion measures can also provide powerful data to leaders to address business questions critical to advancing DEI.

Data & Analysis. Objective data such as meeting/calendar information, emails, messaging and traditional human resource metrics (job rotations, promotions, lateral moves) can be utilized to evaluate inclusion.?Organizational Network Analysis (ONA) provides a method to get actionable insights from these data. Important business questions we can address might include:

1. Meeting inclusion/exclusion — Are employees from underrepresented backgrounds being invited to meetings with executives as frequently as the majority group? How about specifically for decision-making meetings? Are remote/hybrid employees getting 1:1s with their direct supervisors at the same frequency as on-campus employees? Are employees from underrepresented backgrounds having meetings cancelled on them at higher rates than the majority group?
2. Comparing internal networks — Do employees from underrepresented backgrounds interact with colleagues of more senior job levels at the same rate as the majority group? Where do their biggest career advocates sit in the organization?
3. Email responsiveness — In a remote work setting, email is a vital form of communication to move projects along. Are emails from women responded to just as quickly as emails from men?

2) Measuring Inclusion & Outcomes of Inclusion

Below are some measures of each inclusion theme that researchers and practitioners have studied. For inclusion themes, I included the 6 themes identified by Shore and colleagues, as well as an inclusive leadership measure by Carmeli et al. (2010) that touches on many themes. More detailed descriptions of the inclusion themes are in the next section (Building Inclusion).

NOTE: the following list is meant to just provide a starting point of a measure that researchers have used, there may be other measures that some consider better or more concise. If so, send them my way!

Inclusion Themes

1. Psychological Safety — 7-item scale (Edmondson, pg. 382) . Shortened to?5-items ?&?3-items
2. Involvement in the work group (Belonging) — 5-item scale (Chung et al. 2020, pg.83) ?as a dimension of Work Group Inclusion
3. Feeling respected & valued — relevant items on pages 40–41, ?modified from Mor Barak’s Inclusion-Exclusion scale
4. Influence on decision-making — factor 1 (pg.80) ?of Mor Barak’s Inclusion-Exclusion scale
5. Authenticity (Uniqueness) — 5-item scale ?as a dimension of Work Group Inclusion (Chung et al. 2020, pg.83)
6. Recognizing, Honoring & Advancing of Diversity — Fairness & Distributive Justice?(pg. 22) from the Distributive & Procedural Justice scale. Some relevant items appear on this more general?Diversity Climate scale (pg. 81)

Inclusive Leadership — touching on many of these themes, Carmeli et al. (2010) developed a 9-item Inclusive Leadership scale (pg. 32) of 3-dimensions (openness, availability, accessibility) below:

Outcomes

In addition to measuring themes of inclusion, it’s useful to measure outcomes of inclusion to understand what inclusion may be influencing at the employee or organizational level. Below are some measures of outcomes that inclusion researchers and practitioners have studied. Paul Spector’s?website ?has a free I-O Psychology resource with assessments & measures that might be helpful to explore as well.

• Thriving at work — the psychological state in which individuals experience both a sense of vitality and learning (Table 6, pg. 14; Porath et al., 2011 )
• Voice Behavior?—behavior that proactively challenges the status quo and makes constructive changes;?6-item scale (Van Dyne & LePine,1998)
• Emotional Exhaustion — one of the 3-dimensions in the?Maslach Burnout Inventory
• Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)?—voluntary, helpful behaviors that are outside of one’s formal job description;?OCB checklist/scales ?(Paul Spector’s website)
• Work Engagement — Utrecht Work Engagemet Scale (UWES–9S, pg. 48) ?is a?self–report measure of work engagement that consists of 3-dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption
• Turnover intentions — single-item on 6-point Likert scale: “How often have you seriously considered leaving your current job?” (Spector, Dwyer, and Jex, 1988). Consistently linked to voluntary turnover
• Net Promoter Score — a simple measure of how employees feel overall about their company. i.e., ‘On a scale of 0–10, how likely are you to recommend working here to a friend, colleague, or family member?’
• Employee Creativity — 4-item scale (pg. 630) ; a sample item is ‘I try new ideas or methods first’
• Organizational Identification (OID) — a?single-item OID visual item ?has been used in place of verbal scales. A?verbal scale with 3 dimensions ?(pg. 645): membership, loyalty, & similarity

Outcomes: Perceived Organizational Performance

Santos & Brito (2012) ?systematically reviewed 177 empirical studies that measured some form of organizational performance and identified?6 dimensions of organizational performance:

Relative establishment performance — For each of the above items, survey respondents (senior leaders, board members) would provide a rating to the following: “How would you compare the establishment’s performance over the past 3 years to those of other establishments that do the same kind of work?” (1 = substantially worse to 7 = substantially better).?Item scores can then be aggregated to the performance dimension level.

Given that the researchers found strong support for a multi-dimensional model of organizational performance, the choice of performance dimensions is critical when testing relationships. Santos & Brito (2012) argue that practitioners should use specific dimensions of performance that are directly connected to the workplace practice or resource under analysis. For example, if the main focus of a workplace intervention is to improve the satisfaction of internal employees, then instead of using only a financial or aggregate performance measure, we can consider using a measure of performance that is specific to the employee satisfaction dimension (i.e., ratings of the org’s investment in its employees, ratings of career opportunities, etc).

Should you use subjective performance measures??Critiques of subjective performance measures include the fact that these measures depend on employees having knowledge and insight into their organization’s performance and the broader industry. One way to combat this is to look at ratings from senior leaders that likely have more of this knowledge. On the other hand, the researchers note several reasons for the use of subjective measures of performance. Subjective organizational performance measures:

1. Are preferable when the focus is on inter-firm comparison, due to objective indicators varying widely across firms and industries
2. Allow for the assessment of important non-financial criteria
3. Are positively associated with objective measures

3) Building an Inclusive Organization: 2 Approaches

Building inclusion at all levels of an organization is critical to providing an environment where all employees can thrive and contribute more fully. We should take a two-way approach to building an inclusive organization: (1) Promote Inclusion & (2) Prevent Exclusion/Discrimination.

1. Promote inclusion — increase the commitment & enactment of practices, behaviors, & policies that promote inclusion.

Shore and colleagues report 6 themes across the inclusion research that if promoted, can help build an inclusive organization. Below are adapted descriptions of the themes:

6 Themes to Promoting Inclusion

These themes provide a framework of how we might build a more inclusive organization. However, what can we do as individuals and leaders to make improvements across these inclusion themes? A large part of the action to promote inclusion falls on the behaviors of leaders within an organization.?Randel et al. (2017) ?review the leader inclusion literature and identify the below 5 categories of inclusive leader behaviors.

Leader Behaviors that Promote Inclusion

1. Support group members — create a comfortable environment, help employees with their needs, express support for others and their opinions, communicate you have the members’ best interests in mind, hold routine check-ins, verbalize appreciation
2. Ensure justice and equity — show fair treatment of group members, remind members that they are a respected member of the group, seek out every group member's preferences regarding group tasks, proactively consider how decisions may lead to inequities across the group (i.e., last minute work outings may disadvantage working parents who need advanced notice to plan), practice transparent discussions of available promotions/rotations so that opportunities have fair competition, respond to micro aggressions with care and use them as in-the-moment learning opportunities for all employees present
3. Share decision-making — ask for wider group-participation in major decisions, ask group members how to integrate their perspectives, specify which tasks in a group’s work are individual or group decisions
4. Encourage diverse contributions — seek different points of view and approaches, encourage diverse employees to share similar approaches they may have had in previous work experiences, ask those present in a meeting if there are any other important topics they would like to discuss before diving into an agenda, learn and recognize how individuals in the group are comfortable sharing
5. Help group members fully contribute — role model authenticity at work, Openly ask if anyone who hasn’t spoken in a meeting has anything to add or discuss

2. Prevent Exclusion/Discrimination — reduce practices, behaviors, & policies in organizations that lead to exclusion & discrimination.

• Recruitment. Partner with talent acquisition and D&I experts to make sure that the recruitment process is not systematically overlooking or discriminating those from diverse backgrounds. Is there a valid justification for every job requirement? Using the characteristics of your current top performers to craft job requirements might be tempting, but this can lead to a dangerous case of?selection bias ?that results in upholding unjustified discriminatory requirements. Instead, we could use?job analysis ?to uncover the underlying Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, & Other Characteristics (KSAOs) to succeed on the job, and anchor job requirements and the selection process (interviews, assessments & work samples) to those. More detailed steps of a data-driven staffing process can be found on the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology website?here .
• Management of Harassment and Discrimination Claims. Treat every claim seriously and make sure employees are given and aware of a fair process in reviewing their claims. An employee being a “high-performer” is no excuse to treat harassment or discrimination cases any differently. Robert Sutton’s?book ?argues that these “high-performing” bad actors will likely still have a net negative impact on the overall company performance. Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) has?guidance ?on how companies can proceed in the face of harassment or discrimination claims; and of course, make sure to seek Legal counsel.
• Diversity Training. Providing employees dedicated training time can help employees understand other cultures, the roots of discrimination, unconscious bias and how to avoid discriminatory behaviors. Microlearnings can also help provide quick, bite-sized lessons. Two forms of microlearnings include lunch break learning sessions (provide lunch along with a short 20–30 minute training), or informational media such as infographics, videos, &?memes !
• Management of Micro-inequities and Micro-aggressions. Merriam-Webster defines a micro-agression as a comment or action that subtly, and often unconsciously or unintentionally, expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group. Learn to identify the small, yet impactful, behaviors that exclude or devalue members of a team. Then, work to eliminate these harmful behaviors. Some of these behaviors include: repeatedly cancelling meetings with a colleague, greeting one employee more warmly than others, cutting off an employee while they speak, checking your phone during a 1:1 meeting, repeatedly mis-pronouncing someone’s name, or assuming an older colleague doesn’t understand how to use a technological system.

Closing Thoughts

By reviewing themes across the inclusion literature and a model for building an inclusive organization that Shore and colleagues presented, I hope practitioners and organizations can find some useful insights. Some of my takeaways from these studies include a more deep understanding of inclusion at multiple levels (i.e., individual employees, direct supervisors, senior leaders, org policies), organizational & business outcomes impacted by inclusion and their measures, examples of inclusive leadership behaviors, and a model for building an inclusive organization by both promoting inclusion and preventing exclusion/discrimination.

Finally, by looking at both perception and behavioral measures of inclusion, we can get a more holistic view of an organization’s inclusive system. This seems like a more recent area that has less research, and I hope to do a deeper dive with datasets of behavioral inclusion data and measures in the future. Feel free to reach out if you want to connect, or discuss any of the above/other research!

I’m Thaddeus Demeke and I currently work as an I-O Psychology practitioner in the context of advancing Diversity & Inclusion at Genentech. All opinions expressed are my own and not to be associated with my employer.