Literature MDW
Lecture 1: The many faces of diversity
Article 1: Looking Beyond Our Similarities: How Perceived (In)Visible Dissimilarity Relates
to Feelings of Inclusion at Work – Sahin, Van der Toorn, Jansen, Boezeman & Ellemers,
2019
Abstract:
We investigated how the perception of being dissimilar to others at work relates to
employees’ felt inclusion, distinguishing between surface-level and deep-level dissimilarity. In
addition, we tested the indirect relationships between surface-level and deep-level
dissimilarity and work-related outcomes, through social inclusion. Furthermore, we tested
the moderating role of a climate for inclusion in the relationship between perceived
dissimilarity and felt inclusion. An ANOVA showed that felt inclusion was lower for individuals
who perceived themselves as deep-level dissimilar compared to individuals who perceived
themselves as similar, while felt inclusion did not differ among individuals who perceived
themselves as surface-level similar or dissimilar. Furthermore, a moderated mediation
analysis showed a negative conditional indirect relationship between deep-level dissimilarity
and work-related outcomes through felt inclusion. Interestingly, while the moderation
showed that a positive climate for inclusion buffered the negative relationship between
deep-level dissimilarity and felt inclusion, it also positively related to feelings of inclusion
among all employees, regardless of their perceived (dis)similarity.
Introduction:
There is a growing diversity in workplaces and this brings challenges, such as reduced trust
and social integration, which can affect team performance and increase turnover. Diversity
can stem from visible attributes like gender and age, or less visible ones like beliefs and
values. This study focuses on employees' subjective perceptions of their differences with
others at work, rather than specific attributes or comparison groups. Previous research
indicates that both visible (surface-level) and less visible (deep-level) differences can
negatively impact work outcomes, but their effects may vary. It remains unclear which type
of difference more strongly predicts inclusion and its consequences, and whether they
independently affect or interact with each other.
Dissimilarity at work
This section discusses how perceived dissimilarity at work—whether based on visible traits
like age and gender (surface-level) or deeper attributes like values and beliefs (deep-level)—
negatively impacts various work outcomes. Research has shown that employees who feel
different from their colleagues are less engaged, have worse job attitudes, exhibit less helpful
behavior, withdraw more from work, and are more likely to leave their jobs. These negative
outcomes are influenced by mechanisms such as ingroup bias, where majority members may
discriminate against those who are different, and increased self-monitoring by minority
members, which detracts from their work performance.
,Perceived dissimilarity can lead to a lack of social inclusion, where employees feel they don't
belong or can't be their authentic selves at work. This lack of inclusion is linked to lower job
satisfaction, higher stress, increased turnover intentions, and reduced career commitment
and motivation. Previous studies have often focused on objective measures of dissimilarity or
single traits like gender, but this research aims to explore the combined effects of both
surface-level and deep-level dissimilarity on social inclusion and related work outcomes.
The study hypothesizes that both types of perceived dissimilarity negatively impact feelings
of inclusion, which in turn affects job satisfaction, stress, and turnover intentions. It also
suggests that inclusion is crucial for employee motivation, performance, and well-being.
Furthermore, a supportive organizational climate can mitigate the negative effects of
dissimilarity by fostering a sense of inclusion. The research also seeks to explore the
relationship between inclusion and career ambition, particularly among employees who feel
devalued or excluded at work.
In summary, we derive the following hypotheses:
H1a: Perceived surface-level and deep-level dissimilarity negatively relate to felt inclusion.
H1b: Perceived surface-level and deep-level dissimilarity negatively relate to key work-related
outcomes, namely job satisfaction, work-related stress, turnover intentions, career
commitment, and career advancement motivation.
H2: Felt inclusion mediates the relationships between perceived dissimilarity and work-
related outcomes.
H3a: Perceived climate for inclusion moderates the relationship between perceived
dissimilarity and felt inclusion, such that the negative relationship between perceived
dissimilarity and felt inclusion is weaker the more inclusive the climate is perceived to be.
H3b: Perceived climate for inclusion positively relates to felt inclusion.
Climate for inclusion
Materials and methods: skipped
Results:
H1a: Only deep-level dissimilarity was related to lower feelings of inclusion.
H1b: Deep-level dissimilarity also predicted poorer work-related outcomes, but surface-level
dissimilarity did not.
H2: Felt inclusion mediated the relationship between deep-level dissimilarity and work-
related outcomes, meaning those who felt less included due to deep-level dissimilarity had
worse work-related outcomes.
H3a: A positive climate for inclusion mitigated the negative effects of deep-level dissimilarity
on feelings of inclusion. When employees perceived a positive inclusion climate, the adverse
effects of deep-level dissimilarity on inclusion were neutralized.
H3b: A positive climate for inclusion benefited all employees, enhancing their sense of
inclusion, regardless of their perceived dissimilarity.
Discussion:
,Deep-Level Dissimilarity:
Deep-level dissimilarity negatively impacts employees' feelings of inclusion, job satisfaction,
and work-related outcomes, whereas surface-level dissimilarity does not. The relationship
between deep-level dissimilarity and inclusion is not influenced by surface-level dissimilarity.
A positive climate for inclusion can buffer the negative effects of deep-level dissimilarity on
inclusion, improving job satisfaction and reducing stress and turnover intentions.
Surface-Level Dissimilarity:
Contrary to expectations, surface-level dissimilarity did not significantly affect social inclusion
when deep-level dissimilarity was accounted for. Unexpectedly, surface-level dissimilarity
was positively related to career commitment and advancement motivation, possibly due to
overcompensation for perceived stereotypes or the need to level the playing field.
Implications for Diversity Programs:
The study suggests that organizational diversity programs should focus on deep-level
dissimilarity, not just surface-level, to enhance inclusion. A positive climate for inclusion
benefits all employees, both those who feel dissimilar and those who feel similar, by creating
an environment where everyone feels valued and accepted. These findings highlight the
importance of addressing deep-level dissimilarity and fostering an inclusive climate to
improve workplace outcomes for all employees.
Practical implications:
Key practical steps include
1: Broadening Diversity Strategies: Shift from focusing only on surface-level differences (e.g.,
gender, ethnicity) to also addressing deep-level differences (e.g., personality, perspectives) in
diversity management.
2: Three Dimensions of Inclusion:
1: Level Playing Field: Establish and visibly promote practices that combat unfair and biased
actions to signal zero tolerance for discrimination.
2: Integration Strategy: Facilitate the inclusion of all employees without pressuring them to
assimilate into the dominant culture, which supports authenticity and well-being.
3: Inclusive Decision-Making: Ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in decision-
making processes, leading to more creativity and innovation.
Summary:
The research reported in this contribution demonstrates that subjective perceptions of
dissimilarity and the extant climate for inclusion relate to employees’ feelings of inclusion in
important ways. Our results, furthermore, suggest that deep-level dissimilarity is an
important factor in the processes that are at work in diverse groups, even more so than
surface-level dissimilarity. More research is needed to pinpoint which surface-level or deep-
level characteristics in particular are at play in this process and to understand how a climate
for inclusion can be realized in order to create and maintain inclusive workplaces.
Article 2: From Best Practices to Best Methods: An Integral, Systematic, and Evidence-
, Based Approach to D&I Management – Vink, Jansen, Van der Toorn & Ellemers, in prep
Abstract:
Many organizations adopt diversity and inclusion (D&I) programs to establish proportional
representation of minority employees and to create an inclusive work culture. In doing so,
D&I practitioners often adopt “best practices” from other organizations. We argue that this
approach is flawed because it overlooks evidence suggesting that D&I programs are more
effective when implemented as part of a larger bundle of activities than in isolation. Also, we
posit that copying best practices from other organizations lacks a systematic approach to
implementing programs. For example, D&I programs’ effectiveness depends on their
alignment with the organization’s vision and goals, which may differ between organizations.
Furthermore, we contend that the effectiveness of D&I programs adopted from other
organizations is merely based on anecdotal evidence, which is at best a poor proxy for their
actual effectiveness. Instead, we propose that organizations move to a “best methods”
approach. In this approach, D&I programs (a) cover the entire human resources chain, from
recruitment and selection policies to employee retainment initiatives, (b) are developed,
implemented, and evaluated systematically, and (c) are designed following scientific insights
about effective D&I management. By focusing on how D&I programs are implemented, their
constituent initiatives (the what) can be more effective.
Practitioner Notes What is currently known?
• Many organizations aim to achieve a proportional representation of minoritized employees
and to create inclusive work cultures.
• Despite huge investments, D&I programs are not always effective in reaching these goals.
• A growing body of literature shows that D&I programs may even have adverse effects.
What this paper adds?
• We posit that by focusing on “best practices” organizations lack an integrated and
systematic approach to D&I programs.
• Moreover, it overlooks the specific organizational context that affects D&I programs’
effectiveness.
• We propose a “best methods” approach in which D&I programs are integrally and
systematically developed and implemented, and evidence-based.
The implications for practitioners
• By focusing on how D&I programs are implemented, their constituent initiatives (the what)
can be more effective.
• HR practitioners are stimulated to consider D&I initiatives that cover the whole HR chain
(from influx to retention).
• By aligning D&I programs to the organizational strategy, HR practitioners may better
understand what is needed in their organization.
• Scholar-practitioner collaboration enhances the development and implementation of
evidence-based and effective D&I programs.
Introduction:
