Lecture 1
Article #1 - Looking Beyond Our Similarities: How Perceived
(In)Visible Dissimilarity Relates to Feelings of Inclusion at Work
(Şahin et al., 2019)
Background and Aim Workforce diversity has increased substantially in recent decades,
posing challenges for trust, mutual understanding, and social integration at work. Such
challenges can negatively affect performance and increase turnover. Research typically
distinguishes between:
● Surface-level dissimilarity: visible characteristics such as gender, age, and ethnicity.
● Deep-level dissimilarity: less visible characteristics such as values, beliefs, and
preferences. This study investigates how employees’ subjective perceptions of both
forms of dissimilarity relate to their felt inclusion at work and to work-related
outcomes. Furthermore, it examines the role of a climate for inclusion in buffering
negative effects.
Key Concepts
● Felt inclusion: the extent to which employees feel they belong (belonging) and can be
their authentic selves (authenticity).
● Climate for inclusion: organizational openness to differences, fair treatment, and
involvement of all employees in decision-making.
● Work-related outcomes: job satisfaction, work-related stress, turnover intention,
career commitment, and career advancement motivation.
Hypotheses
● H1a: Perceived surface- and deep-level dissimilarity negatively relate to felt inclusion.
● H1b: Perceived dissimilarity negatively relates to work-related outcomes.
● H2: Felt inclusion mediates the relationship between perceived dissimilarity and
work-related outcomes.
● H3a: A positive climate for inclusion moderates the relationship, buffering the
negative effect of dissimilarity on inclusion.
● H3b: A climate for inclusion positively relates to felt inclusion among all employees.
Method
- Sample: 887 employees of a Dutch public service organization (Mage = 45.6 years,
40% male, 59% female).
- Design: Online survey, cross-sectional.
- Measures:
- Perceived dissimilarity: 2 dichotomous items (surface vs. deep).
, - Climate for inclusion: 12-item scale (e.g., “being seen as an inconvenience –
being seen as an asset”).
- Felt inclusion: 16-item Perceived Group Inclusion Scale (belonging +
authenticity).
- Work outcomes: job satisfaction, work stress, turnover intention, career
commitment, and career advancement motivation.
- Analyses: ANOVA, MANOVA, SEM, and moderated mediation analyses.
Results
- H1a (Inclusion):
- Deep-level dissimilarity → significantly lower inclusion.
- Surface-level dissimilarity → no significant effect.
- H1b (Work outcomes):
- Deep-level dissimilarity predicted lower job satisfaction, higher stress, and
stronger turnover intentions.
- Surface-level dissimilarity showed no consistent effect; in some cases, it was
positively related to career commitment/motivation (possibly
overcompensation).
- H2 (Mediation):
- Felt inclusion mediated the link between deep-level dissimilarity and
work-related outcomes.
- H3a (Moderation):
- A positive climate for inclusion buffered the negative impact of deep-level
dissimilarity on inclusion. Under a positive climate, dissimilar and similar
employees felt equally included.
- H3b (Main effect):
- A climate for inclusion improved inclusion for all employees, not only
minorities.
Discussion
- Main finding: Deep-level dissimilarity is more detrimental to felt inclusion and work
outcomes than surface-level dissimilarity.
- Unexpected findings:
- Surface-level dissimilarity had no direct negative effect on inclusion once
deep-level dissimilarity was considered.
- It was even positively related to career motivation and commitment, possibly
reflecting compensatory efforts.
- Role of climate for inclusion: An inclusive climate benefits both minority and majority
members, enhancing everyone’s sense of belonging and authenticity.
Practical Implications
- Diversity programs should not focus solely on visible characteristics (e.g., gender,
ethnicity), but also on deep-level attributes (e.g., beliefs, values, perspectives).
- Inclusive climates can be fostered by:
, 1. Establishing a level playing field (fair and unbiased practices, intolerance of
discrimination).
2. Supporting integration without assimilation (valuing authenticity, avoiding
pressure to conform).
3. Ensuring inclusive decision-making (giving voice to diverse perspectives,
stimulating creativity).
Limitations
- Dissimilarity measured with single dichotomous items (limited nuance).
- No contextual differentiation (team vs. organization).
- Cross-sectional design prevents causal conclusions.
- SEM model fit was modest.
- Order of survey questions may have primed salience of dissimilarity.
Conclusion
- Deep-level dissimilarity more strongly undermines inclusion and work outcomes than
surface-level dissimilarity.
- Felt inclusion is a key mediator linking dissimilarity to satisfaction, stress, and
turnover intentions.
- A climate for inclusion both buffers negative effects for dissimilar employees and
enhances inclusion for all employees.
- Implication: Organizations should move beyond a sole focus on visible diversity and
foster climates in which invisible differences are also valued.
, Article #2 - Identifying Best Practices Through Best Methods
Background and problem definition
- Organizations increasingly adopt diversity and inclusion (D&I) programs to:
- achieve proportional representation of minoritized groups,
- and foster an inclusive work culture.
- Many adopt “best practices” from other organizations.
- This approach is flawed:
- Programs are often implemented in isolation (piecemeal initiatives).
- They are not aligned with the organization’s vision or goals.
- Effectiveness is usually based on anecdotal evidence rather than systematic
evaluation.
- As a result, many D&I initiatives are ineffective or even counterproductive (Dobbin &
Kalev, 2016, 2022).
Critique of the best practices approach The authors highlight three major problems
with copying practices:
1. Standalone initiatives
- Effectiveness often comes from a bundle of practices, not from a single program.
- Isolated initiatives risk having little or no sustainable effect.
2. Lack of organizational alignment
- Practices are not always consistent with the organization’s vision, strategy, and
values.
- Context matters: what works in one organization may fail in another.
- Risk of window dressing or virtue signaling.
- Majority group members may resist, perceiving D&I as a zero-sum game.
3. Lack of evidence
- “Best practices” are usually based on anecdotal reports.
- Few organizations systematically measure effectiveness.
- Practitioners often lack access to or understanding of the scientific literature, creating
a science-practice gap.
Theoretical framework: Theory of Change (ToC)
- ToC describes how and why desired change is expected to occur.
- Helps unpack the “black box” of D&I programs by focusing on process as well as
outcomes.
- Without ToC, effectiveness cannot be properly assessed.
- ToC emphasizes:
- desired change must be explicit,
- programs should be designed and evaluated systematically,
- focus should be on long-term, sustainable change.
Article #1 - Looking Beyond Our Similarities: How Perceived
(In)Visible Dissimilarity Relates to Feelings of Inclusion at Work
(Şahin et al., 2019)
Background and Aim Workforce diversity has increased substantially in recent decades,
posing challenges for trust, mutual understanding, and social integration at work. Such
challenges can negatively affect performance and increase turnover. Research typically
distinguishes between:
● Surface-level dissimilarity: visible characteristics such as gender, age, and ethnicity.
● Deep-level dissimilarity: less visible characteristics such as values, beliefs, and
preferences. This study investigates how employees’ subjective perceptions of both
forms of dissimilarity relate to their felt inclusion at work and to work-related
outcomes. Furthermore, it examines the role of a climate for inclusion in buffering
negative effects.
Key Concepts
● Felt inclusion: the extent to which employees feel they belong (belonging) and can be
their authentic selves (authenticity).
● Climate for inclusion: organizational openness to differences, fair treatment, and
involvement of all employees in decision-making.
● Work-related outcomes: job satisfaction, work-related stress, turnover intention,
career commitment, and career advancement motivation.
Hypotheses
● H1a: Perceived surface- and deep-level dissimilarity negatively relate to felt inclusion.
● H1b: Perceived dissimilarity negatively relates to work-related outcomes.
● H2: Felt inclusion mediates the relationship between perceived dissimilarity and
work-related outcomes.
● H3a: A positive climate for inclusion moderates the relationship, buffering the
negative effect of dissimilarity on inclusion.
● H3b: A climate for inclusion positively relates to felt inclusion among all employees.
Method
- Sample: 887 employees of a Dutch public service organization (Mage = 45.6 years,
40% male, 59% female).
- Design: Online survey, cross-sectional.
- Measures:
- Perceived dissimilarity: 2 dichotomous items (surface vs. deep).
, - Climate for inclusion: 12-item scale (e.g., “being seen as an inconvenience –
being seen as an asset”).
- Felt inclusion: 16-item Perceived Group Inclusion Scale (belonging +
authenticity).
- Work outcomes: job satisfaction, work stress, turnover intention, career
commitment, and career advancement motivation.
- Analyses: ANOVA, MANOVA, SEM, and moderated mediation analyses.
Results
- H1a (Inclusion):
- Deep-level dissimilarity → significantly lower inclusion.
- Surface-level dissimilarity → no significant effect.
- H1b (Work outcomes):
- Deep-level dissimilarity predicted lower job satisfaction, higher stress, and
stronger turnover intentions.
- Surface-level dissimilarity showed no consistent effect; in some cases, it was
positively related to career commitment/motivation (possibly
overcompensation).
- H2 (Mediation):
- Felt inclusion mediated the link between deep-level dissimilarity and
work-related outcomes.
- H3a (Moderation):
- A positive climate for inclusion buffered the negative impact of deep-level
dissimilarity on inclusion. Under a positive climate, dissimilar and similar
employees felt equally included.
- H3b (Main effect):
- A climate for inclusion improved inclusion for all employees, not only
minorities.
Discussion
- Main finding: Deep-level dissimilarity is more detrimental to felt inclusion and work
outcomes than surface-level dissimilarity.
- Unexpected findings:
- Surface-level dissimilarity had no direct negative effect on inclusion once
deep-level dissimilarity was considered.
- It was even positively related to career motivation and commitment, possibly
reflecting compensatory efforts.
- Role of climate for inclusion: An inclusive climate benefits both minority and majority
members, enhancing everyone’s sense of belonging and authenticity.
Practical Implications
- Diversity programs should not focus solely on visible characteristics (e.g., gender,
ethnicity), but also on deep-level attributes (e.g., beliefs, values, perspectives).
- Inclusive climates can be fostered by:
, 1. Establishing a level playing field (fair and unbiased practices, intolerance of
discrimination).
2. Supporting integration without assimilation (valuing authenticity, avoiding
pressure to conform).
3. Ensuring inclusive decision-making (giving voice to diverse perspectives,
stimulating creativity).
Limitations
- Dissimilarity measured with single dichotomous items (limited nuance).
- No contextual differentiation (team vs. organization).
- Cross-sectional design prevents causal conclusions.
- SEM model fit was modest.
- Order of survey questions may have primed salience of dissimilarity.
Conclusion
- Deep-level dissimilarity more strongly undermines inclusion and work outcomes than
surface-level dissimilarity.
- Felt inclusion is a key mediator linking dissimilarity to satisfaction, stress, and
turnover intentions.
- A climate for inclusion both buffers negative effects for dissimilar employees and
enhances inclusion for all employees.
- Implication: Organizations should move beyond a sole focus on visible diversity and
foster climates in which invisible differences are also valued.
, Article #2 - Identifying Best Practices Through Best Methods
Background and problem definition
- Organizations increasingly adopt diversity and inclusion (D&I) programs to:
- achieve proportional representation of minoritized groups,
- and foster an inclusive work culture.
- Many adopt “best practices” from other organizations.
- This approach is flawed:
- Programs are often implemented in isolation (piecemeal initiatives).
- They are not aligned with the organization’s vision or goals.
- Effectiveness is usually based on anecdotal evidence rather than systematic
evaluation.
- As a result, many D&I initiatives are ineffective or even counterproductive (Dobbin &
Kalev, 2016, 2022).
Critique of the best practices approach The authors highlight three major problems
with copying practices:
1. Standalone initiatives
- Effectiveness often comes from a bundle of practices, not from a single program.
- Isolated initiatives risk having little or no sustainable effect.
2. Lack of organizational alignment
- Practices are not always consistent with the organization’s vision, strategy, and
values.
- Context matters: what works in one organization may fail in another.
- Risk of window dressing or virtue signaling.
- Majority group members may resist, perceiving D&I as a zero-sum game.
3. Lack of evidence
- “Best practices” are usually based on anecdotal reports.
- Few organizations systematically measure effectiveness.
- Practitioners often lack access to or understanding of the scientific literature, creating
a science-practice gap.
Theoretical framework: Theory of Change (ToC)
- ToC describes how and why desired change is expected to occur.
- Helps unpack the “black box” of D&I programs by focusing on process as well as
outcomes.
- Without ToC, effectiveness cannot be properly assessed.
- ToC emphasizes:
- desired change must be explicit,
- programs should be designed and evaluated systematically,
- focus should be on long-term, sustainable change.
