What is the connection of diversity and inclusion? Why are they tied so closely together? To varying degrees, diversity is a fact of life in work groups and organizations. Inclusion is grounded in what we do with that diversity when we value and appreciate people because of and not in spite of their differences, as well as their similarities. More important, it involves creating work contexts in which people are valued and appreciated as themselves and as integrated and complexâwith their full range of differences and similarities from and with each other. Essentially, inclusion is a way of working with diversity: it is the process and practice through which groups and organizations can reap the benefits of their diversity.
Diversity at Work
What makes diversity so important? On the one hand, much of the focus in the field of diversity in organizations has been on reducing or eliminating undesirable, unfair, and illegal bias and discrimination and on increasing equity and social justice (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012). On the other hand, many theorists, researchers, and practitioners (for example, Davidson, 2011; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Ferdman & Brody, 1996; Mor Barak, 2011; Page, 2007) have emphasized the benefits that individuals, groups, organizations, and societies can derive from diversity. This understanding forms the foundation for many organizational diversity initiatives.
In the United States and elsewhere, much of the focus on and work on diversity in organizations began in the context of efforts to expand social justice and civil rights across lines of race, gender, age, disability, and other dimensions of identity that had often formed (and in many cases continue to form) the basis for systematic exclusion and discrimination. As societies and organizations expanded the degree to which members of previously excluded groups were represented in different institutions, in different types of jobs, and at various hierarchical levels, issues of authenticity and effectiveness became more important. In many cases, members of previously excluded groups were not willing (or able or allowed) to assimilate to dominant norms and styles as a price of admission or promotion; in other cases, the quantity of newer members made intergroup differences more notable; and in still other cases, people who were already members but had needed to blend in and perhaps submerge aspects of themselves to be accepted began to be more willing to âcome outâ regarding previously hidden differences. These processes have meant that, as diversity has become more discussed, recognized, and valued, we seem to find and see more and more of it, along a greater number of dimensions.
Simultaneously, it became clearer that these differences, when viewed and managed as potential assets, could bring substantial benefits to organizations. Because diversity is not simply about supposedly superficial demographic facts or labels, but rather about identities, cultures, and the varied meaning and ways of thinking about and approaching situations that these represent (Ferdman, 1992; D. A. Thomas & Ely, 1996), theorists and practitioners developed descriptions of organizations that treated differences more positively. Cox (1991), for example, distinguished among monocultural, plural, and multicultural organizations, and R. R. Thomas (1990) discussed the importance of creating work environments âwhere no one is advantaged or disadvantaged ⌠[and] where âweâ is everyoneâ (p. 109). Miller and Katz (1995), based on earlier work by Bailey Jackson and others, described a path from exclusive to inclusive organizations. Holvino (1998; see also Holvino, Ferdman, & Merrill-Sands, 2004) described the differences and transitions between monocultural exclusionary organizations, transitional compliance-focused organizations, and finally truly multicultural organizations, which âseek and value all differences and develop the systems and work practices that support members of every group to succeed and fully contributeâ (Holvino et al., 2004, p. 248). Similarly, D. A. Thomas and Ely (1996) described what they called the âlearning and effectiveness paradigmâ or later the âintegration and learning perspectiveâ (Ely & Thomas, 2001) for addressing diversity in organizations; this approach involves viewing and treating cultural and other identity-based differences as resources from which the whole organization can benefit and learn, rather than as something to be ignored for the purpose of avoiding discrimination or highlighted solely for the purpose of accessing niche markets.
In spite of the many arguments for the benefits of diversity at work (for example, Cox & Blake, 1991; Stahl, Mäkelä, Zander, & Maznevski, 2010), scholars have also pointed out that diversity can be associated with negative outcomes. Mannix and Neale (2005), for example, reviewed research on diversity in teams. They summarized the premise of their work as follows: â[T]here has been a tension between the promise and the reality of diversity in team process and performance. The optimistic view holds that diversity will lead to an increase in the variety of perspectives and approaches brought ...