Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 40

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al.

, AOM 2009

INCLUSIVE BEHAVIOR AND THE EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION


Bernardo M. Ferdman Victoria Barrera Ashley A. Allen Vanna Vuong Alliant International University Marshall Goldsmith School of Management 10455 Pomerado Rd. San Diego, CA 92131 U.S.A. Tel: +1 858 635-4408 e-mail: bferdman@alliant.edu

In B. G. Chung (Chair), Inclusion in Organizations: Measures, HR Practices, and Climate. Symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago August 11, 2009

Note. The measures of the experience of inclusion and inclusive behavior are Copyright 2006 Bernardo M. Ferdman, Ashley A. Allen, Victoria Barrera, and Vanna Vuong. All rights reserved. Please do not duplicate or distribute without written permission from the first author.

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion ABSTRACT Elaborating the construct of inclusion is important in developing a better understanding of the dynamics of diversity. In this study, we sought to distinguish and investigate the relationships between the experience of inclusionthe degree to which individuals feel safe, respected, valued, supported, authentic and engaged in their workgroupand inclusive behavior, which is behavior or practices that are likely to foster dialogue and interaction, show respect for diversity and differences, and create a climate of safety. We distinguished among three types of inclusive behaviorthose demonstrated by the individual respondent, those produced by members of the workgroup, and inclusive organizational policies and proceduresand constructed measures for each, as well as for the experience of inclusion, to test the hypothesis that inclusive behavior would predict the experience of inclusion. We also expected that people who tend to hold dominant identities within their workgroups would most likely experience greater degrees of inclusion. A total of 945 respondents from many organizations completed online versions of these measures, as well as scales of workgroup effectiveness, organizational affective commitment, and job satisfaction. Results showed high internal consistency reliabilities for the measures of respondents experience of inclusion and self-reported inclusive behavior, as well as for workgroup inclusive behavior. These variables were highly intercorrelated, supporting our principal hypothesis, and also correlated with ratings of workgroup effectiveness, organizational affective commitment, and job satisfaction. We also assessed demographic and other group differences in the experience of inclusion, as well as the interactions of inclusive behavior and inclusive organizational policies/procedures with various demographic and contextual variables in predicting the experience of inclusion. The dominance index was positively correlated with the experience of inclusion and workgroup inclusive behavior. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings for research and practice.

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 INCLUSIVE BEHAVIOR AND THE EXPERIENCE OF INCLUSION This study focuses on the multifaceted construct of inclusion as experienced by individuals in the workgroup setting. We believe there are two parts to inclusion, which to date most scholars, practitioners, and previous assessments have not clearly distinguished, and sought to clarify and explore this distinction empirically. One component of inclusion is inclusive behavior, the behaviors manifested by a person and his or her workgroup members, together with the organizational policies and procedures, that foster an inclusive climate; the second part of inclusion, experience of inclusion, is the psychological sense on the part of an individual that he or she is indeed being included. We are not aware of previous studies specifically examining inclusive behavior as a distinct construct from the psychological experience of inclusion. Yet, this distinction is important both conceptually and practically, because allows investigating which behaviors can be supported and/or modified in organizations to foster the experience of inclusion, overall and for different groups of employees, as well as separating the desired effect, experience of inclusion, from its possible antecedent, inclusive behavior. In this way, it is not necessary to assume that all individuals will experience inclusion on the basis of the same antecedents and it becomes possible to consider the moderating effects of demographic and contextual variables on the behavior-experience relationship. Figure 1 presents our overall model. We looked at the relationship of the various types of inclusive behavior with the experience of inclusion, and considered how personal characteristics and workgroup and organizational variables predicted each of these variables and moderated their relationship. -------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here -------------------------------------------------------------

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 Why is Inclusion Important? The importance of inclusion is best understood in the context of diversity, which Cox (2001) defined as, the variation of social and cultural identities among people existing together in a defined employment or market setting (p. 3). Diversity also refers to the differences in peoples perspectives and approaches that will likely affect their acceptance, work performance, satisfaction, ideas about how to do work, or progress in an organization (see e.g., Thomas & Ely, 1996). These varying identities, perspectives, and approaches are what make each individual a unique contributor to the work processes and outputs of any group or organization. Organizations can reap multiple benefits by understanding and embracing the unique configurations of identities that different people bring to work, by encouraging positive perceptions of the diversity in the organization, and by properly managing diversity (Cox, 2001; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Ferdman & Davidson, 2002; Holvino, Ferdman, & Merrill-Sands, 2004; Katz & Miller, 2003; Mor-Barak, 2000; Thomas & Ely, 1996; Wasserman, Gallegos, & Ferdman, 2008). Diversity theorists have long proposed that the key ingredient to reaping the benefits of diversity is inclusion (see, e.g., Ferdman & Davidson, 2002; Holvino, Ferdman, & Merrill-Sands, 2004). Higher levels of workplace trust and collaboration and strengthened employee relationshipsimportant components of inclusive culturescan result in improved group and organizational performance (Pearce & Randel, 2004; Pfeffer, 1998). By fostering inclusion, organizations can make it more likely that they will support their employees reach their fullest potential, thus benefiting both the employees and the organization. Moreover, individuals sense of being included by others at work is related to their psychological well-being (e.g., Greenglass, Fiskenbaum & Burke, 1996; Hayes & Major, 2003). People have a strong need to belong and inclusion can help people to survive and flourish (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge,

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 2005). Indeed, research has shown that if people perceive they are valued, cared about, and included in the workgroup and organization, they are more conscientious, have more positive expressed affect, have a higher level of involvement in the organization, are more satisfied and innovative, and identify more fully with the work they do (e.g., Eisenberger, Fasolo, & DavisLaMastro, 1990; Hayes & Major, 2003; Thomas & Ely, 1996). Pearce and Randel (2004), for example, found that job performance ratings were higher when employees had more informal social ties and stronger feelings of belonging and of social inclusion. Diversity, and more specifically inclusion, seem to bring benefits both to the individual and the organization. In the next section, we review theory and research regarding the construct of inclusion. What is Inclusion? Although theorists and researchers have varied somewhat in their definitions of inclusion, there are many common themes. Giovannini (2004) describes inclusion as the state of being valued, respected, and supported. Major, Davis, Sanchez-Hucles, Germano, and Mann (2005) define inclusion as a sense of belonging, participation, and influenceor as Katz and Miller (2003) describe it, being confident that one is seen as and is indeed valuable to the organization. Hayes and Major defined inclusion in the workplace as an individuals collective judgment or perception of belonging as an accepted, welcomed and valued member in the larger organization units, such as a work group, department, and overall organization (2003: 5). Mor-Barak and Cherin defined inclusion to consist of the degree to which individuals feel part of critical organizational processes (1998: 48), as well as the extent to which they have access to the organizations information network and influence on decision-making processes. Ferdman (in press) described it this way: In its most general sense, inclusion involves both being fully ourselves and allowing others to be fully themselves in the context of engaging in common

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 pursuits. Pless and Maak (2004) believe that reciprocal understanding, mutual enabling, trust, and integrity are also necessary ingredients of inclusion. Menzies and Davidson (2002) suggest that the feeling of authenticity is associated with inclusion and is intimately linked with the feeling of being known. On the other hand, a lack of inclusion can be thought of as involving feelings of inauthenticity, alienation, skepticism, distrust, hopelessness, futility, and despair, as well as confusion of identity and a sense of not belonging (Menzies & Davidson, 2002). Thus, inclusion in a workgroup relates to individual perceptions of both involvement in task-related processes such as information exchange and collaborative decision making and of the degree of feeling respected, valued, and listened to (Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2004). Most prior work on inclusion has not clearly distinguished, however, between individual perceptions or experiences of inclusion, on the one hand, and the behaviors that are thought to result in those feelings, on the other hand. Davidson and Ferdman (2004; Ferdman & Davidson, 2002) distinguished conceptually between affective inclusionthe experience or feelings of inclusionand behavioral inclusion; they described inclusive behavior as an antecedent to feelings of inclusion, and as produced by either other workgroup members and/or by the individual him- or herself. In this paper, we build on that distinction and explore it empirically. We define the experience of inclusion in a workgroup as individuals perception of the extent to which they feel safe, trusted, accepted, respected, supported, valued, fulfilled, engaged, and authentic in their working environment, both as individuals and as members of particular identity groups. When we feel included, we believe not only that we are treated well as individuals, but also that others in our identity groups, as well as the groups as a whole, are respected, honored, trusted, and given voice, appreciation, power, and value. Such identity

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 groups can be based on any number of categories, including but not limited to gender, ethnicity, race, age, sexual orientation, religion, culture, and national background. For example, we believe a Latina experiences more inclusion to the extent that the people in her workgroup respect and honor not only her as an individual, but also honor and respect Latinos and Latinas as a group. An inclusive environment cultivates the consistent expectation that demographic differences are justly utilized and addressed during interpersonal interactions. In contrast, inclusive behaviors are those actions or practices, both on the part of the individual as well as other members of the workgroup, that are distinct from but thought to be likely to lead to experiences of inclusion. In the broad category of such behavior, we also include inclusive organizational policies and procedures. In the following sections we elaborate on both concepts in more detail. Components of the Experience of Inclusion We believe that the psychological experience of inclusion (i.e., feelings of safety, respect, support, value, trust, fulfillment, engagement, and authenticity within the workgroup) incorporates the following components: involvement and engagement in the workgroup, influence on decision making, feeling valued, authenticity/bringing ones whole self to work, and the sense that diversity is recognized, attended to, and honored. Involvement/engagement in the workgroup. Involvement in workgroups, employee engagement, and access to information have been explored as key components of inclusion (e.g., Major et al., 2005; Menzies & Davidson, 2002; Pearce & Randel, 2004). Engagement includes the amount of participation by individuals in their workgroup (Berg, 2002; Hobman et al., 2004; Mor-Barak, 2005; Stamper & Masterson, 2002; Yorks & Kasl, 2002) as well as feelings of belonging and of having sufficient access to information (e.g., Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998) and to the necessary resources to complete their job duties.

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 Influence on decision-making. Employees sense that they can affect the groups decision-making process by having voice, being heard, and feeling as though they have had an effect are also components of the experience of inclusion (Mor-Barak & Cherin, 1998). Having influence in the decision-making process lets individuals see that they are valuable and important to the organization, and may be associated with the sense that they have the status of an insider (Stamper & Masterson, 2002) in their workgroup. Feeling valued. An important component of the experience of inclusion, in our view, is the sense that one matters to others in ones group, both as an individual and as a member of multiple social identity groups. This extends beyond ones functional value to a more fundamental sense of being acknowledged and appreciated as a human being, a human being who may be different from others in the group. Authenticity /bringing ones whole self to work. Authenticity is the ability to be fully oneself at work, including feeling that it is possible to have genuine and honest conversations with other co-workers that do not require involuntarily hiding relevant parts of oneself (Berg, 2002) or ones views. Having the freedom to stray from group norms and to think outside the box are also examples of bringing ones whole self to work. Menzies and Davidson state that a lack of authenticity can stem from being so afraid of seeing who we really are and how we can actually act that it scares us; so we cling, seeking to attain security, mastery and control, doing so at the expense of authentic being (2002: 45). Recognizing, attending to, and honoring diversity. By recognizing, attending to, and valuing their diversity, groups can create more fluid processes for communication and integration (Hobman et al., 2004; Phillips, Northcraft, & Neale, 2006; see also (Avigdor, Braun, Konkin, Kuzmycz, and Ferdman, 2007). Also, to the degree that group members seek out

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 multiple perspectives from each other, they are also likely to believe that they have more opportunities to interact positively, fairly, and constructively with each otherwithout prejudice and without resorting to stereotypingand that their unique and special talents and characteristics are noticed and viewed as beneficial to the group. Attending to and recognizing diversity also includes valuing a persons identity groups. When individuals believe that their group is not open to their social identities, they may also believe that they are being viewed through the lens of stereotypes and associated negative biases (Elsass & Graves, 1997; Hobman et al., 2004). The idea of fairness and equal distribution of opportunity within an organization is also tied to valuing and recognizing diversity. Major et al. defined climate for opportunity as an individuals overall perception of the fairness and inclusiveness of the workplace in terms of the processes used to allocate opportunities and the resulting distribution of opportunities (2005: 2). Equity plays a large part in this because if employees perceive that they are being treated like their peers in terms of the distribution of opportunity, they will have a sense of fairness, which we include as part of the experience of inclusion. Inclusive Behaviors Actionable behaviors as well as organizational policies and procedures can be one way to assess an organizations degree of inclusion, but only to the degree that those behaviors and policies indeed result in the experience of inclusion. A key step in changing an organization or a groups culture is modifying individual behaviors. To create a culture of inclusion, individuals should show respect for diversity and practice appropriate daily behavior (Ferdman, 2003; Ferdman, Katz, Letchinger, & Thompson, 2009; Giovannini, 2004). Seemingly small behaviors are likely to make a large difference in a persons experience of inclusion in a workgroup (Ferdman & Davidson, 2002; Holvino et al., 2004). Behaviors can also act as ground rules for an

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 organization that is trying to foster inclusion (Miller & Katz, 2002). Creating an organization that fosters inclusion requires behavior changes on the part of everyone in the organization, as well as supporting policies and procedures at the organizational level. Competencies in everyday behaviors should be developed to value differences and allow all members of the organization to feel that they belong and that they matter. Some organizations encourage particular behaviors on the premise that they foster inclusion. For example, The Hartford Financial Services Group (The Hartford, 2006) stresses the following to employees: listen to all individuals until they feel understood, accepting others references as true for that individual, be honest and clear, build on each others ideas and thoughts, take risks, and speak up for oneself (see also Miller & Katz, 2002). Our goal in this study was to assess the degree to which self and workgroup behaviors are associated with the experience of inclusion. Through a literature review, experiential workshops with leaders and employees, and our own thinking and experience, we identified multiple behaviors that we believed would be both observable and associated with the experience of inclusion. The behaviors included in this study can be grouped into the following categories: creating safety, acknowledging others, dealing with conflict and differences, ability and willingness to learn, having a voice, and representation. We explore each of these together with their potential links to the experience of inclusion. Creating safety. One type of inclusive behavior focuses on helping to create safety for individuals, for example through the establishment of appropriate boundaries for the group, such that they are both clear and yet not rigidly based on inappropriate criteria. Safety and its link to inclusion can be examined though the example of sexual harassment in an organization. MinerRubino and Cortina found that sexual harassment can affect not just the person targeted but also

10

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 the members in the group around that targeted person, because others may not feel safe and fear that they will also be targeted (2004: 108). Safety and its link to inclusion can also be examined in the context of intergroup relations theory (Alderfer, 1977), which states that group boundaries, both physical and psychological, determine who is a group member and regulate transactions among groups depending on the ease with which boundaries can be crossed. Creation of safety is likely to be greater in groups that facilitate these boundary crossings and foster sharing of resources, ideas, and perspectives without fear. Perlows (2003) research on the silence spiral shows the negative effects that can occur when people do not feel safe to express their views, ideas, and differences with others at work (see also Bowen & Blackmon, 2003). On the other hand, safety-enhancing behavior such as clarity of self-expression, avoidance of belittling or ridiculing of work associates, and use of appropriate ground rules for interactions within the group are likely to avoid these negative effects and result not only in a heightened experience of inclusion, but also in a more effective and satisfying group. Acknowledging others. The act of greeting and acknowledging others at work often has been described as an important behavior resulting in the experience of inclusion (e.g., Jensen, 1995, cited in Miller & Katz, 2002). Acknowledgement also extends to checking in regarding work-relevant issues. Often, people in a workgroup, especially those in a lower status (e.g., meal servers, cleaning people, staff people, etc.), may not be acknowledged by others. This type of inclusive behavior can range from a simple hello when an individual passes a co-worker in the hall, to checking in with others about their activities over the weekend, to talking with others about the details of their personal lives, as well as discussing aspects of the groups work. Dealing with conflict and differences. Behavior or practices that helps to address conflict and differences among workgroup members and to deal with diversity may also affect

11

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 the experience of inclusion. These can include attending workshops on diversity and cultural awareness, as well as explicitly acknowledging and accepting differences in people's learning and work habits. Dealing with conflict involves behaviors such as addressing conflict when it arises and actively searching for alternative solutions. Ability and willingness to learn. Employees expressions of their ability and willingness to learn may also be associated with experiences of inclusion. Tjosvold, Yu, and Hui (2004) found that if team members knew that they had similar goals and that they were in it together, they were more likely to learn from their mistakes (p. 1238). Thus, when team members acted inclusively, it facilitated their learning process. On the other hand, when employees have the ability and willingness to learn, inclusion can be facilitated. We propose that behaviors such as asking for feedback from or sharing information with workgroup members are likely to increase a persons experience of inclusion. Having a voice. Using ones voice in the workgroup as well as encouraging others to do so can enhance experiences of inclusion. Voice-related behaviors are speaking and listening sometimes encouraged by ground rules and/or team chartersso as to allow space for individuals to speak up and be heard in ways that include all members of the workgroup. Inclusive behaviors related to voice can also include communicating clearly and listening carefully to help others feel heard and understood. Major et al. (2005) found that there are two ways for individuals to show that they value others contributions: affective (social) support (e.g., listening, being sympathetic, and expressing care) and instrumental (tangible) helping behaviors (e.g., assisting with work responsibilities and switching schedules). Both of these support systems are needed for individuals to perceive that others value their contributions and presence.

12

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 Representation. Representation of a diverse range of people in the workgroup and at all levels of the organization is an aspect of organizations policies and procedures that may relate to experiences of inclusion. When there is diverse representation, employees would see people with whom they share some social identities throughout the organizational hierarchy, thus leading them to feel that their groups are included. For example, if an Asian woman sees other Asian women working as managers, executives, or board members, she will be more likely to believe that those aspects of her identity are accepted within the organization. Behavior associated with representation involves ensuring that the right mix of people is involved as needed. In sum, we have listed the types of behavior that we believe may be associated with the experience of inclusion. These behaviors can be displayed by respondents themselves or by members of their workgroup. Additionally, organizations can have inclusive policies and procedures to greater or lesser degrees. Thus, we distinguish three types of inclusive behavior: those displayed by the self, those displayed by the members of the workgroup, and the polices and procedures of the organization. This leads to our principal hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: More inclusive behaviors by the self, the members of the workgroup, and the organization (in the form of policies and procedures) will be positively related to experiences of inclusion. The Direct and Moderating Effects of Demographic and Contextual Variables As shown in Figure 1, we also expected that demographic and contextual variables could be related to inclusive behavior and/or experience of inclusion, as well as moderate their relationship. Given that this was an initial and somewhat exploratory study, we did not formulate specific hypotheses for most of these variables. Nevertheless, we thought it would be important, in developing the construct and measure of the experience of inclusion, to explore the role of

13

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 such differences. For instance, one possibility was that men and women would report different amounts of inclusive behavior both for themselves and for their work associates; they may also experience different degrees of inclusion, either because they have different needs and wants, or because they are treated differently by their fellow workgroup members. With regard to gender, for example, Billett (2001) found that gender distinctions likely influence invitations to participate in new activities and the guidance provided by more experienced coworkers. Major et al. (2005) found that men and women reported similar feelings on some aspects of inclusion including belonging, participation and decision making, yet men more than women felt that their contributions had influence on the environment. The demographic variables that we examined were concerned with social identity groups (Alderfer, Tucker, Alderfer, and Tucker, 1988), which can affect both experiences of inclusion and how people both express and interpret inclusive behaviors. The most commonly recognized identity groups and the ones on which we focused are those based on race or ethnicity, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation. We also asked about other personal characteristics as they relate to the job, including job level, type of job, and whether or not participants had received diversity training. The workgroup and organizational variables that we considered were type of industry, number of people employed by the organization, participants knowledge of the presence of organizational diversity initiatives, proportion of participants time spent in contact with other workgroup members, tenure in the current workgroup, size of the workgroup, and participants general perception of the amount diversity within the workgroup. Beyond the diversity of the workgroup, another important variable may be individuals perceptions of their similarity or difference to their workgroup on dimensions of identity, also referred to as relational demography. Miner-Rubino and Cortina (2004) found that women felt

14

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 less comfortable in groups primarily composed of men than men did in groups primarily composed of women. Thus, we focused not only in the specific identity groups to which participants belonged, but also on whether or not these were in the majority or minority within the workgroup. Indeed, we expected that relational demography would be related to the experience of inclusion, in the sense that people who tend to hold dominant identities within their workgroups would most likely experience greater degrees of inclusion. Hypothesis 2. To the extent that individuals are in the majority within their workgroup with regard to their multiple identity groups, they will be more likely to experience inclusion. The Consequences of Inclusion As discussed earlier, inclusion has been posited to have important positive effects in groups and organizations. We explored this by assessing the relationships of inclusive behavior and the experience of inclusion with workgroup effectiveness (Wheelan, 1999), affective organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997), and job satisfaction (Spector, 1985). METHODS Participants and Procedures To obtain as diverse a sample of participants as possible, we conducted the study using an online questionnaire and solicited participation from a broad set of people by posting invitations on multiple listservs and similar potential sources of respondents. We also sent invitations via email to professional and personal acquaintances and contacts; all members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology; various national and local Chambers of Commerce and Rotary clubs; numerous Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender groups; all staff, faculty, students, and many alumni of our university; several minority-focused professional groups;

15

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 religious leaders of various faiths; and managers and executives who had attended professional development workshops delivered by one of the authors. Our invitation asked potential respondents not only to participate in the study, but also to forward the invitation to others, a request with which many of those receiving the e-mail apparently complied. Thus, we do not know how many people ultimately received the invitation, though we estimate that our direct emails or listserv postings reached approximately 7,500 individuals. Prospective participants received an explanation of the study, a notice of confidentiality, and a link to the questionnaire, which was available online. All participation was completely anonymous. The basic requirements for participation were to be part of a workgroup (defined for the purposes of this study as 2 or more people) in an organization of any size, and to be 18 years of age or older. A total of 945 people (580 women, 360 men, 5 unspecified) completed the questionnaire. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the sample. White/Europeans constituted 71.4% of the respondents; and approximately half (55.4%) of the participants characterized themselves as Christian or Catholic. The majority (50%) of the participants were professionals and most (92.5%) of the participants reported being heterosexual. Approximately half (55.2%) of the respondents indicated that they had participated in diversity training. -------------------------------------------------------------Insert Tables 1, 2, and 3 about here ------------------------------------------------------------Table 2 shows the workgroup characteristics of our sample. Most (57.4%) participants reported workgroups of between four and ten members, and 67.2% had the role of peer within their workgroup. Approximately 60 percent of our sample spent less than half their time at work in contact with their workgroup. The largest group (41.8%) of our participants had been part of

16

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 their workgroup for between one and five years, and 60.8% of our sample found their workgroup to be somewhat diverse. Table 3 shows the characteristics of our respondents organizations. The education/training industry employed 35% of participants in our sample, and almost two-thirds of the organizations in which our participants worked had some kind of diversity initiative. Measures The questionnaire included multiple measures, including assessments of the respondents experience of inclusion, inclusive behavior by the respondents and their workgroup, inclusive organizational policies and procedures, and three potential correlates or consequences of inclusion (workgroup effectiveness, affective commitment, and job satisfaction), as well as items to assess respondent demographics and relational demography, and workgroup and organizational characteristics. These are described in the following sub-sections. (Details of results for psychometric analyses, including internal consistency reliability and factor analysis, are presented in the Results section.) Participants were asked to respond to all questions with reference to their primary workgroup, defined as the workgroup in which they worked the most often at the time of responding to the questionnaire. Experience of inclusion. We developed a 24-item scale to measure the experience of inclusion based on themes extracted from our literature review and our own understanding of the construct. The items in this scale were intended to assess core aspects of the experience of inclusion as felt by participants within their workgroups. The components we addressed in our items were engagement and involvement in the workgroup, ability to influence decision-making, feeling valued, authenticity and bringing the whole self to work, and recognizing and attending to diversity, both of ideas and of social identities. We wrote items for each of these components

17

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 of the experience of inclusion with the goal of tapping into participants experience both as individuals and as member of multiple identity groups. Participants were asked to indicate how often [they] experience certain feelings in [their] current workgroup by rating each of the 24 items on a five-point frequency scale (1=never to 5=always). Two examples of items are: At work, I am treated the way I want to be treated, and At work, I feel I can be proud of my various memberships/identities. Two of the items, My workgroup can tell how Im feeling even if I dont explicitly say and I believe others at work care about my feelings and wellbeing, were adapted from scales developed by other researchers (Menzies & Davidson, 2002, and Aube Rousseau, 2005, respectively). Total experience of inclusion scores were computed by averaging responses across the 24 items for each respondent. (Three items were phrased in negative terms and were reverse-coded prior to computing overall scale scores.) Inclusive behavior and inclusive organizational policies and procedures. These measures, comprised by three related but different sets of items, were intended to represent observable behavior thought to foster inclusion. As with the Experience of Inclusion Scale, these items were based both on our literature review and our understanding of the construct. We included items focused on the following categories of behavior: creating safety, acknowledging and appreciating others, collaboration and dealing with conflict and differences, being able and willing to learn, using and giving voice, and enhancing representation. For all items, we asked respondents to indicate the frequency of the behavior, using the same rating scale as for experience of inclusion. Scores for each of the behavior scales were computed by averaging responses for the items. The first measure (12 items), Inclusive Behavior-Self, focused on the respondent (e.g., I congratulate my colleagues when they do a good job; I actively and sincerely show interest in

18

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 my co-workers and their lives), and asked participants to indicate the frequency of their own inclusive behaviors. One of the items (I introduce myself to people I dont know at work) came from Jensen (1995), and we wrote the rest. One item was reverse-coded. The second measure (17 items), Workgroup Inclusive Behavior, focused on the workgroup (e.g., Members of my workgroup work together to develop one anothers ideas). We developed 12 items and borrowed five from other instruments, as follows: Members in my workgroup encourage one another to do a good job and Members of my workgroup help each other out if someone falls behind in his/her work were from Aube and Rousseau (2005); The members of my workgroup acknowledge differences between peoples learning and work habits and accept them came from Yorks and Kasl (2002), and Members of my workgroup allow time for preparation and discussion during and after meetings as well as My workgroup encourages group participation came from Shetzer (1993). One item was reverse coded. The third measure (4 items), Inclusive Organizational Policies/Procedures, focused on the existence and utilization of relevant organizational policies and procedures (e.g., My supervisor enforces organizational policies and procedures on sexual harassment, discrimination, and diversity, My organization employs a diverse range of people at all levels). This scale was kept short, since the focus of the study was primarily perceptions of individual and group behavior and experience. Workgroup effectiveness, affective commitment, and job satisfaction. We included 22 items rated on 5-point Likert scales (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) to assess three constructs as potential correlates or outcomes of the experience of inclusion. The measure of workgroup effectiveness used eight items from Wheelans (1999) 28-item High Performing Team Effectiveness Scale, including items from each of Wheelans original sub-scales (team

19

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 learning, outsider satisfaction, team performance, and member satisfaction). An example item is The members of my workgroup produce quality work. To assess participants affective commitment to their organization, we used Meyer and Allens (1997) 6-item Affective Commitment Scale. An example of the items is This organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me. (Three of the six items were reverse coded.) We also measured participants job satisfaction with eight items from Spectors (1985) 35-item Job Satisfaction Survey, including four reverse-code items. Two examples of the items are Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult and I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. Demographic and contextual variables. At the beginning of the questionnaire we collected information about the participants and their organizations, including demographics, relational demography, role in and relationship to the workgroup, and organizational characteristics. Information about the participant included job level, type of job, participation in past diversity training, age group, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion. For each of these five social identities we also asked respondents to indicate their degree of similarity to the rest of their workgroup, on a three-point scale (e.g., for age, response choices were many or most people are similar to me in age, there are some people similar to me in age, and there are very few or no people similar to me in age). Responses to each of these five items were scored +1 when participants were in the majority, 0 when they were similar to some people, and -1 when they reported being in the minority. These scores were then aggregated for each participant to create an index of the number of identities in which the participant was in the majority or minority in workgroup, which we labeled as the dominance index. We also asked participants to indicate the type of industry in which they worked, the

20

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 number of people employed by their organization, their knowledge of the presence/absence of an organizational diversity initiative, the proportion of time they spent in contact with workgroup members, how long they had been a member of the reference workgroup, the number of workgroup members, and their general perception of diversity in the workgroup (the latter question read How diverse is your workgroup with regard to gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, national origin, age, etc.? and provided three response options: Extremely diverse, Somewhat diverse, and Not diverse at all.). Order. All participants completed the demographic items first. To permit assessing the effects of order of presentation for the Experience of Inclusion and Inclusive Behavior scales, we implemented a pseudo-random method of assignment to allow manipulating order as an experimental variable. Following the demographic items, participants were asked: What is the last digit of your phone number? Those who provided a digit between 0 and 4 completed the Experience of Inclusion Scale first, and then the inclusive behavior scales (Inclusive BehaviorSelf, Workgroup Inclusive Behavior, and Inclusive Organizational Policies/Procedures). Those who provided a digit between 5 and 9 received the three inclusive behavior measures first and then the Experience of Inclusion Scale. Finally, participants were presented with the items assessing workgroup effectiveness, affective commitment, and job satisfaction.1 RESULTS In this section, we focus first on the development of our scales. We then present tests of our hypotheses as well as analyses testing for demographic and contextual differences on the inclusion variables. Finally, we assess the interactions of background variables with inclusive

At the end of the questionnaire, we also included a scale focusing on the ideal experience of inclusion. This scale used the same items as the Experience of Inclusion Scale, but preceded each with the phrase, In my ide al workgroup ... and asked participants to indicate the frequency with which they would like to experience particular feelings in their workgroup. The results for those items are not presented in this paper.

21

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 behavior in predicting experience of inclusion. Scale Development To assess the degree to which the items on the various scales held together as intended, we first calculated internal consistency reliability coefficients, and then conducted principal axis factor analyses with varimax rotation for the set of items intended to measure experience of inclusion and inclusive behavior. Cronbachs alphas are presented in Table 4, which also includes means, standard deviations and Ns for the scales. The reliability coefficients were very high, ranging from = .78, for Job Satisfaction, to =.95 for Experience of Inclusion, with the exception of the four-item Inclusive Organizational Policies/Procedures scale, =.54, When we left out the item, When my organization holds social events, employees are encouraged to bring their partners/families, reliability increased slightly, to .57. Further results for this scale are based on three items. -------------------------------------------------------------Insert Table 4 about here ------------------------------------------------------------Factor analyses. A factor analysis of the 24 items in the Experience of Inclusion Scale indicated a one-factor solution, based on the scree test, accounting for 47.0% of the variance, and with factor loadings ranging from .34 to .83 and a median loading of .68. The presence of this general factor supported the idea that the items constitute one scale. Details are shown in Table 5. -------------------------------------------------------------Insert Tables 5 and 6 about here ------------------------------------------------------------Similar results were obtained in factors analyses with each of the inclusive behavior measures. The 12 items in the Inclusive Behavior-Self measure all loaded on one factor,

22

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 accounting for 34.8% of the variance, and with factor loadings ranging from .36 to .72. Factor loadings for the 17 items of the Workgroup Inclusive Behavior measure, which also resulted ina one factor solution accounting for 42.0% of the variance, ranged from .39 to .78. Finally, the items Inclusive Organizational Policies/Procedures also loaded on one factor, accounting for 42.6% of the variance, with factor loadings ranging from .27 to .65. Table 6 provides details for the results of these factor analyses, which were quite consistent with the reliability analyses. Order Effects Respondents completed the instruments in one of two presentation orders, with 457 participants responding to the Experience of Inclusion items first, and 488 participants responding to the Inclusive Behavior items first. Reliability analyses conducted separately for each of the two order conditions did not show any substantive differences. Additionally, T-tests showed no significant differences based on order. All further analyses combined both order conditions. The Relationship of Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion Hypothesis 1 posited a positive relationship of the three inclusive behavior scales with Experience of Inclusion. Indeed, as shown in Table 4, this prediction was strongly supported by our bivariate correlation analyses. Workgroup Inclusive Behavior was the most highly correlated with Experience of Inclusion (r=.82), Inclusive Behavior-Self slightly less so (r=.64) and Inclusive Organizational Policies/Procedures the least (r=.31). We also regressed Experience of Inclusion on all three scales simultaneously, as summarized in Table 7. This analysis showed that participants ratings of inclusive behavior in their workgroup strongly predicted their selfreported experience of inclusion. To a lesser degree, but still significantly, respondents reports of their own inclusive behaviors were also positively associated with their experience of

23

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 inclusion. When these two predictors were held constant, the ratings of inclusive organizational policies and procedures did not explain additional variance in experience of inclusion, in spite of the significant bivariate correlation. -------------------------------------------------------------Insert Table 7 about here ------------------------------------------------------------Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion in Relation to Demographic and Contextual Variables Hypothesis 2 predicted that respondents who more often found themselves in majority social identities within their workgroup would report experiencing more inclusion. Indeed, this was the case to some degree, as shown by a correlation of .11 (p<.01) between our dominance index (M=1.37, SD=1.70) and experience of inclusion. The dominance index was also positively related to workgroup inclusive behavior (r=.06, p<.05). Both experience of inclusion and inclusive behavior showed relationships to a number of the demographic and contextual variables. Participants were likely to report that they experienced significantly more inclusion when they were men rather than women (etasquared=.005), when they were supervisors rather than peers (eta-squared=.035), and when they worked in an organization of 50 people or less (eta-squared=.025). Experience of inclusion was positively correlated with participant age (r=.08, p<.02), time spent in contact with other workgroup members (r=.11, p<.01), and with the perceived diversity of the workgroup (r=.08, p<.02), as well as negatively with the size of the workgroup (r=-.16, p<.001). Participants were more likely to indicate that they behaved inclusively (Inclusive Behavior-Self) when they were supervisors (eta-squared=.059), and when they worked in an organization of 50 people or less (eta-squared=.018). Self-rated inclusive behavior was also

24

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 positively correlated with age (r=.14, p<.001), with time spent in contact with other workgroup members (r=.18, p<.001) and with the perceived diversity of the workgroup (r=.08, p<.03). Supervisors were more likely than peers (eta-squared=.010) to rate their workgroups as behaving inclusively. Ratings of workgroup inclusive behavior were negatively correlated with size of the workgroup (r=-.19, p<.001) and of the organization (r=-.07, p<.05). Finally, supervisors were also more likely than peers (eta-squared=.014) to perceive their organization as having more inclusive organizational policies and procedures, as were respondents reporting that their organization had a diversity initiative (eta-squared=.122) or who had participated in diversity training (eta-squared=.058). Ratings of inclusive organizational policies and procedures were positively correlated with time spent in contact with other workgroup members (r=.12, p<.001), with the perceived diversity of the workgroup (r=.20, p<.001), and with the size of the organization (r=.28, p<.001). This last association was primarily due to increased ratings on the measure by those respondents from large organizations (5000+ employees). In spite of these findings, effects were not found for other demographic variables, such as race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion. Lastly, we conducted a series of moderated multiple regressions to explore the possibility that the relationship of inclusive behavior and the experience of inclusion was moderated by the demographic and contextual variables. For each of these analyses, we used experience of inclusion as the criterion variable, and regressed it hierarchically on the dummy codes for the demographic or contextual variable, then the three inclusive behavior scores, and finally the interaction terms. Three of these analyses showed significant interactions, as follows: The effect of Inclusive Behavior-Self was slightly but significantly increased for participants

25

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 working in organizations of between 1,000 and 5,000 employees ( R2=.008, p<.05, =.20). The effect of Inclusive Organizational Policies and Procedures was slightly but significantly attenuated in more heterogeneous groups (R2=.005, p<.01, =-.11 for somewhat diverse workgroups and -.13 for extremely diverse workgroups, relative to workgroups that are not at all diverse.). The effect of Inclusive Organizational Policies and Procedures was also slightly but significantly attenuated for men, relative to women (R2=.003, p<.05, =-.06). This interaction is depicted in Figure 2, which shows that the women in our sample were more likely to report that they experienced inclusion to the extent that they also saw their organization as proactive with regard to inclusion. In contrast, men showed the opposite relationship. -------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here ------------------------------------------------------------Workgroup Inclusion as a Predictor of Effectiveness, Commitment, and Job Satisfaction We predicted that both experience of inclusion and the inclusive behavior scales would be positively associated with measures of workgroup effectiveness, affective organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. Indeed, this was borne out, as shown in Table 4. Correlations of these variables with Experience of Inclusion ranged from .62 to .72, those with Inclusive Behavior-Self ranged from .45 to .49, those with Workgroup Inclusive Behavior ranged from .51 to .76, and those with Inclusive Organizational Policies/Procedures ranged from .25 to .40. DISCUSSION The results of this study provide strong evidence for the existence and utility of the experience of inclusion construct, as related to and yet distinct from inclusive behavior.

26

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 Additionally, the study joins a growing body of research that begins to separate the concepts of diversity and inclusion (Roberson, 2006). The high internal consistency reliability coefficients, combined with the results of the factor analyses, indicate that in most cases the items held together as intended. The strong association between Workgroup Inclusive Behavior and Experience of Inclusion, confirming our hypothesis, can also be interpreted as support for the construct validity of both measures, although it might be argued that the two measures converged a bit too much to be fully distinct. Indeed, it was challenging to generate items that fell clearly into the separate buckets of experience and behavior. Yet, we believe that the distinction can have practical significance for organizations, which can focus on experience of inclusion as a desirable goal, and inclusive behavior as a means to create that experience. One of the most interesting findings was the strong relationship between self-reported inclusive behavior and the experience of inclusion. The implication is that people who behave inclusively will also feel more included. Indeed, these two variables may comprise a virtuous cycle, and one focus of much work on building inclusion in groups and organizations is in supporting people to facilitate that process through their own actions (see, e.g., Ferdman 2007a, 2007b). The pattern of demographic differences was both interesting and in some ways surprising. As we expected, there was an association between holding dominant identities within ones workgroup and feeling included. Although the relationship was relatively weak, it adds further evidence for the construct validity of the measure of the experience of inclusion. At the same time, we did not find differences based on race/ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. In part, this may be due to relatively small sub-samples, yet in many cases the trends did not indicate that larger sample sizes would have changed the pattern of results.

27

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 Finally, the interactions of demographic and contextual variables with the inclusive behavior scales in predicting experience of inclusion, although small, were instructive. Specifically, inclusive organizational policies and procedures, even with our relatively weak measure, showed two interesting interactions, one with group diversity, and the other with gender, in predicting experience of inclusion. The first implication of that, we believe, is that our measures were sufficiently sensitive to pick up these patterns. The negative interaction with group diversity is consistent with the idea that in more diverse workgroups it is interpersonal interactions, rather than broader policies at the organizational level, that will have the greatest effect on bridging within-group differences. The interaction with gender suggests that men can react negatively and feel less included to the extent that they see systematic attempts by the organization to address diversity, in contrast with women, who are more likely to be encouraged by the same initiatives. The study has various limitations that should be noted. In spite of the large sample size, we were not able to track whether or not some respondents belonged to the same workgroup, and thus address the issue of shared variance in our analyses. This can be addressed in future studies by seeking and tracking respondents from the same groups, and analyzing the data at both the individual and group levels. Another limitation is that all data were based on self-report. Future investigations should focus on obtaining independent assessments of inclusive behavior, as well as on correlating our scales of inclusive behavior and experience of inclusion with better measures of organizational policies and practices related to inclusion and diversity.

28

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 REFERENCES Alderfer, C. P. 1977.Group and intergroup relations. In J. R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: 227- 296. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. Alderfer, C. P., Tucker, R. C., Alderfer, C. J., & Tucker, L. M. 1988. The race relations advisory group: An intergroup intervention. In W. A. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, vol. 2: 269-321. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Aube, C. & Rousseau, V. 2005. Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9: 189-204. Avigdor, A., Braun, D., Konkin, J., Kuzmycz, D., & Ferdman, B. M. 2007. Workgroup inclusion, diversity, and performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, August. Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. 2005. Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88: 589-604. Berg, D. N. 2002. Bringing ones self to work: A Jew reflects. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38: 397-415. Billett, S. 2001. Co-participation: Affordance and engagement at work: Sociocultural perspectives on learning through work. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 92: 63-72. Bowen, F. & Blackmon, K. 2003. Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1393-1417. Cox, T. H., Jr. 2001. Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Davidson, M. N. & Ferdman, B. M. 2002. The experience of inclusion. In B. Parker, B. M. Ferdman, & P. Dass (Chairs), Inclusive and effective networks: Linking diversity theory and practice. All-Academy symposium presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, Denver. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7: 5159. Elsass, P. M., & Graves, L. M. 1997. Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: The experiences of women and people of color. Academy of Management Review, 22: 946973. Ely, R. J. & Thomas, D. A. 2000. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 229-273. Ferdman, B. M. 2003. A matter of difference-Accounts of inclusion (and exclusion). The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 40(4): 81-86. Ferdman, B. M. 2007a. Inclusion starts with knowing yourself. San Diego Psychologist, 22 (4): 1, 5-6.

29

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 Ferdman, B. M. 2007b. Self-knowledge and inclusive interactions. San Diego Psychologist, 22 (5): 25-26. Ferdman, B. M., & Davidson, M. N. 2002. A matter of difference-inclusion: What can I and my organization do about it? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(4): 80-85. Ferdman, B. M., Katz, J., Letchinger, E., & Thompson, C. T. 2009. Inclusive behaviors and practices (Version 1.1). Manuscript in preparation, Institute for Inclusion (http://www.instituteforinclusion.org). Giovannini, M. 2004. What gets measured gets done. Journal for Quality & Participation, 27(4): 21-27. Greenglass, E., Fiskenbaum, L., & Burke, R. J. 1996. Components of social support, buffering effects and burnout: Implications for psychological functioning. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 9: 185-197. The Hartford. 2006. Diversity and inclusion. http://www.thehartford.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119440505949&pagename=HIG/Page /Common&nt_page_id=1119440505949&nt_section=1118759546810&c=Page. Retrieved February 25, 2006. Hayes, B. C., & Major, D. A. 2003. Creating inclusive organizations: Its meaning and measurement. Paper presented at the 18th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando. Hobman, E., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. 2004. Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group & Organizational Management, 29: 560-587. Hodson, R. 2004. A meta-analysis of workplace ethnographies: Race, gender and employee attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Contemporary Ethnographies, 33: 4-38. Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. M., & Merrill-Sands, D. 2004. Creating and sustaining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S. Stockdale, & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity: 245-276. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Jensen, M. 1995. Inclusion questionnaire. Unpublished questionnaire, The Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group, Inc., Troy, NY. Katz, J. & Miller, F. A. 2003. Building inclusion and leveraging diversity a way of doing business. In D. L. Plummer (Ed.), Handbook of diversity management: Beyond awareness to competency-based learning: 447-471. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Major, D., Davis, D., Sanchez-Hucles, J., Germano, L., & Mann, J. 2005. IT workplace climate for opportunity and inclusion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu. Menzies, D. & Davidson, B. 2002. Authenticity and belonging: The experience of being known in the group. Group Analysis, 35: 43-55. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1997. Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 Miller, F. A. & Katz, J. H. 2002. The inclusion breakthrough: Unleashing the real power of diversity. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Miner-Rubino,K. & Cortina, L. M. 2004. Working in a context of hostility toward women: Implications for employees well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9: 107-122. Mor-Barak, M. E. 2000. The inclusive workplace: An ecosystems approach to diversity management. Social Work, 45: 339-352. Mor-Barak, M. E. 2005. Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mor-Barak, M. E. & Cherin, D. A. 1998. A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in Social Work, 22, 47-64. Mor-Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. 1998. Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34: 82-104. Pearce, J. L., & Randel, A. E. 2004. Expectations of organizational mobility, workplace social inclusion, and employee job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 8198. Perlow, L. 2003. When you say yes but mean no: How silencing conflict wrecks relationships and companies and what you can do about it. New York: Crown Business. Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Phillips, K. W., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 2006. Surface-level diversity and decisionmaking in groups: When does deep-level similarity help? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9: 467482 Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. 2004. Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes, and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54: 129-147. Roberson, Q. M. 2006. Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31: 212-236. Shetzer, L. 1993. A social information processing model of employee participation. Organization Science, 4: 252- 268. Spector, P. E. 1985. Measurement of satisfaction. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13: 693-713. Stamper, C. L & Masterson, S. S. 2002. Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 875894. Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. 1996. Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 41(5): 79-90. Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z., & Hui, C. 2004. Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative goals and problem solving. Journal of Management Studies, 41: 1223-1245.

31

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 Wasserman, I. C., Gallegos, P. V., & Ferdman, B. M. 2008. Dancing with resistance: Leadership challenges in fostering a culture of inclusion. In K. M. Thomas (Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations: 175-200. New York: Taylor and Francis. Wheelan, S. 1999. Creating effective teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yorks, L. & Kasl, E. 2002. Toward a theory and practice for whole person learning: Reconceptualizing experience and the role of affect. Adult Education Quarterly, 52: 176192.

32

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 TABLE 1 Participant Demographic Characteristics (N=945)
N Gender Female Male No response Race/ethnicity White/European Hispanic/Latino Asian/Pacific Islander Other Black/African American No response Age 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Religion Christian Catholic Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist No answer Jewish Other religion No response Sexual Orientation Heterosexual (Straight) Homosexual (Lesbian/gay) Not sure Prefer not to answer No response Job level President/VP/CEO/Owner/ Partner/Director/Manager/Supervisor Trained professional Individual contributor Consultant Administrative staff Other Job type Professional (Consulting, HR, Legal, Medical) Manager/Official/Proprietor Partner/Senior executive Educator/Researcher Student/Intern 304 219 172 112 92 39 7 874 38 16 15 2 336 277 132 116 74 10 470 109 96 72 32.2 23.2 18.2 11.9 9.7 4.1 0.7 92.5 4.0 1.7 1.6 0.2 35.6 29.3 14.0 12.3 7.8 1.1 49.7 11.5 10.2 7.6 269 267 208 149 52 28.5 28.3 22 15.8 5.5 675 119 53 52 45 1 71.5 12.4 5.6 5.5 4.8 0.1 580 360 5 61.7 38.3 0.5 % of total

33

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009
N Technical/IT professional Clerical Marketing/Sales Service Worker Other No response Participated in diversity training? Yes No No Response 65 49 39 28 15 2 522 420 3 % of total 6.9 5.2 4.1 3.0 1.6 0.2 55.2 44.4 0.3

TABLE 2 Characteristics of Participants Workgroup Context (N=945)


N Number of people in the workgroup 2-3 members 4-6 members 7-10 members 11-15 members 15 or more members No response Primary relationship to workgroup Peer Supervisor Other Proportion of time spent in workgroup Less than 25% 25-49% 50-74% 75% or more No response Tenure in workgroup Less than 3 months 3-6 months 6 months -1 year 1-5 years Over 5 years No response Diversity of the workgroup Extremely diverse Somewhat diverse Not at all diverse No response 108 310 232 119 173 3 635 214 96 294 286 199 163 3 71 85 173 394 220 2 224 575 145 1 % of total 11.4 32.8 24.6 12.6 18.3 0.3 67.2 22.6 10.2 31.1 30.3 21.1 17.2 0.3 7.5 9.0 18.3 41.7 23.3 0.2 23.7 60.8 15.3 0.1

34

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 TABLE 3 Characteristics of Participants Organizations (N=945)
N Industry Education/Training/Research Prof. services (Consulting, HR, Legal) Consumer products Government Medical/Healthcare/EMS Others (Non-profit, Finance/Banking, Public Utilities, Technology, Manufacturing, Military, Insurance, Service, Entertainment, Travel, Advertising, Chemical, Agricultural, Construction) Number of employees 1-50 people 51-200 people 201-500 people 501-1000 people 1001-5000 people More than 5000 people Organization has or had a diversity initiative? Yes No 331 146 98 71 56 178 35.0 15.4 10.4 7.5 5.9 18.8 % of total

148 105 103 97 180 304 587 351

15.7 11.1 10.9 10.3 19.0 32.2 62.1 37.1

TABLE 4 Descriptive Statistics, Cronbachs Alphas, and Correlations among Key Variables a
Variable N Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Experience of 934 3.95 .58 (.95) Inclusion 2. Inclusive 937 3.86 .52 .64 (.85) Behavior - Self 3. Workgroup Inclusive 938 3.82 .59 .82 .57 (.92) Behavior 4. Inclusive Organizational 931 3.30 .86 .31 .24 .34 (.57) Policies/ Procedures 5. Workgroup 934 3.88 .67 .72 .49 .76 .40 (.86) Effectiveness 6. Affective 933 3.42 .97 .62 .45 .51 .25 .55 (.89) Commitment 7. Job Satisfaction 933 3.64 .69 .62 .49 .56 .25 .60 .66 (.78) a For all correlations in the table, p<.01. Ns for the correlations range from 923 to 938. Cronbachs alphas are in the diagonal, in parentheses.

35

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 TABLE 5 Factor Loadings - Experience of Inclusion Items
Item 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. I enjoy being in my workgroup I feel I can be fully myself in my workgroup I am fully respected by the members of my workgroup At work, I am treated the way I want to be treated When I interact with group members, I can be genuine and authentic I believe others at work care about my feelings and well-being My contributions are highly valued by my workgroup I can collaborate well with others in my workgroup I feel like an outsider in my workgroup (R)

10. I feel safe to express unique parts of myself at work 11. The other members of my workgroup trust me 12. I care about my workgroup 13. I feel like I am up to date with what happens in my workgroup 14. At work, I feel I can be proud of my various memberships/identities 15. My workgroup is committed to working through disagreements and difficult situations 16. To get a job done well, I can count on others in my workgroup 17. My identity as a member of many groups/identities is recognized, utilized, and appreciated by my co-workers 18. My ideas influence the workgroup's decisions 19. In my workgroup I feel misunderstood (R) 20. I believe that I am treated fairly at work, without discrimination based on my religion, race, sexual orientation, culture, national background, age or other identities 21. At work, I can be open about my religious and spiritual beliefs and/or practices without fear of ridicule or hostility 22. I want my workgroup to do well 23. My workgroup can tell how I'm feeling even if I don't explicitly say 24. At work, people tend to see me in stereotypical terms related to my group memberships/identities (R) Eigenvalue Cumulative % of variance

.83 .77 .77 .77 .75 .75 .74 .72 .71 .71 .69 .68 .68 .68 .68 .66 .64 .62 .60 .56 .55 .50 .44 .34
11.28 47.0%

36

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 TABLE 6 Factor Analyses Inclusive Behavior Scales
Inclusive Behavior-Self Items 1. I speak candidly about topics when it matters in my workgroup. 2. I make it a point to involve myself when important decisions are made. 3. In my work group, I address conflict when it arises 4. I am explicit and direct about my wants, feelings, and needs with my workgroup members. 5. I ask for feedback from group members. 6. In my workgroup, I proactively and readily share information and resources. 7. I congratulate my colleagues when they do a good job. 8. I actively and sincerely show interest in my co-workers and their lives 9. I talk to my supervisor about the issues that are important to me. 10. I introduce myself to people I dont know at work. 11. I remain silent when I disagree with my workgroup (R) 12. I seek out opportunities to work with others who are different than me with respect to gender, race, age and/or sexual orientation. Eigenvalue Cumulative % of variance Workgroup Inclusive Behavior Items 1. Members of my workgroup work together to develop one anothers ideas. 2. My work group encourages group participation. 3. Members of my workgroup allow time for participation and discussion during and after meetings. 4. Members in my workgroup actively talk about alternative solutions. 5. My group members do a good job of giving me all the information I need to do my job well. 6. Members in my work group encourage one another to do a good job. 7. Members in my work group say thank you to one another. 8. The members of my workgroup acknowledge differences between people's learning and work habits and accept them. 9. In my workgroup, we openly talk about how we work, not only what we work on. 10. Members of my workgroup, help each other out if someone falls behind in his/her work. 11. My work group asks for every members opinions before making decisions. 12. My work group is flexible with me when I need to attend to personal matters (e.g. religious, family, social, etc.). 13. Members of my workgroup greet me when they see me. 14. People in my workgroup belittle or ridicule others within the workgroup (R). 15. Members of my workgroup come over to my desk or send me an email giving me feedback. 16. My workgroup uses agreed upon ground rules to ensure a safe space to address feelings, needs, and differences. Factor Loading .72 .70 .68 .65 .64 .62 .59 .54 .52 .50 .47 .36 4.2 34.8% Factor Loading .78 .77 .73 .73 .73 .72 .72 .68 .67 .65 .64 .59 .57 .52 .50 .49

37

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009
17. Members of my workgroup are flexible with my schedule, as it relates to religious commitments. Eigenvalue Cumulative % of variance Inclusive Organizational Policies/Procedures Items 1. My supervisor enforces organizational policies and procedures on sexual harassment, discrimination, and diversity. 2. My organization holds workshops or other training events to help employees learn how to deal with conflict and differences. 3. My organization employs a diverse range of people at all levels. 4. When my organization holds social events, employees are encouraged to bring their partners/families. Eigenvalue Cumulative % of variance .39 7.2 42.0% Factor Loading .65 .55 .46 .27 1.7 42.6%

TABLE 7 Regression of Experience of Inclusion on Inclusive Behavior Variables Predictors Inclusive behavior-self Workgroup inclusive behavior Inclusive organizational policies/procedures R2 F .25*** .66*** .02 .84*** 740.93*** ***p<.001 Constant (intercept) has been omitted. Experience of inclusion, inclusive behaviors, and inclusive organizational policies/procedures were mean-centered.

38

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 FIGURE 1 Proposed Relationships among Inclusive Behavior, Experience of Inclusion, and Personal and Contextual Variables Personal Characteristics (e.g., Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Job Level)

Inclusive Behaviors (Self, Workgroup, and Organizational Policies/Procedures)

Experience of inclusion

Workgroup and Organizational Factors (e.g., Organization Size, Organizational Diversity Initiatives, Time in Workgroup, Workgroup Size, Workgroup Diversity)

39

Inclusive Behavior and the Experience of Inclusion, Ferdman et al., AOM 2009 FIGURE 2 The Interactive Effects of Gender and Inclusive Organizational Policies and Procedures on the Experience of Inclusion

40