The effects & interaction of an inclusive climate on multiple levels in organizations
Introduction
Differences in race, gender, age and background make us who we are. Due to globalization,
organizations face these differences, also referred to as diversity, on a daily basis in the
workforce (Kim & Bhawuk, 2008). Some organizations, such as Google, attempt to use diversity
to their advantage (Brown, 2018), whilst others are still not focused on getting the best out of
their diverse workforce. Although some researchers found positive effects of diversity initiatives
(Erhardt, Werbel, & Shrader, 2003), others found that focusing on diversity initiatives alone is
not enough (Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008). Organizations who want to benefit from
their diverse workforce need an inclusive climate. According to Nishii (2013), an inclusive
climate is a climate where the organization reduces bias, integrates differences and includes
employees in decision-making. The aim of this essay is to answer the question how an inclusive
climate affects the individual, group and organizational level outcomes and how these levels
interact. This essay starts with explaining what an inclusive climate is and continues with an
elaboration of how it affects and interacts on the individual, group and organizational level.
What is an inclusive climate?
This section elaborates upon the concept inclusive climate. According to Nishii (2013) a climate
of inclusion exists of three dimensions. The first dimension is targeted at eliminating bias
through the use of fair and diversity specific human resources (HR) practices (Nishii, 2013). For
instance, organizations could use diversity training (Kulik, 2014) or implement recruitment
diversity programs (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). Reducing bias is important as it lowers the
intergroup conflicts at work (Nishii, 2013). Furthermore, the second dimension involves the
integration of differences between diverse employees at work (Nishii, 2013). An example of a
practice targeted at this dimension is appointing a diversity committee to integrate differences at
the workplace (Kalev et al., 2006). Lastly, the third dimension focuses on inclusiveness with
regards to decision making. It reflects to what extent diverse perspectives of employees are
brought to light and integrated (Nishii, 2013). An example of this dimension is inclusive
leadership, as leaders can bring diverse perspectives of employees to light. To conclude, these
dimensions and its examples show that adopting an inclusive climate can have an impact on
different levels of the organization.
1
, Individuals in an inclusive climate
This section explains how an inclusive climate affects the individual level. Firstly, Nishii (2013)
found that an inclusive climate encourages individuals and give them the opportunity to
participate in decision-making. Furthermore, it motivates individuals to include and help fellow
coworkers (Nelissen, Hülsheger, Gemma, & van Ruitenbeek, 2016). What these outcomes have
in common, is that individuals are motivated to display participative behavior, because they have
the opportunity to do so. This is in line with the AMO theory (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg,
Kalleberg, & Bailey, 2000) which suggests that employee motivation is moderated by the
opportunity to display certain behavior (e.g. opportunity to participate in decision-making).
Furthermore, theorizing from the AMO theory (Appelbaum et al., 2000) it is argued that an
inclusive climate can enhance employee ability to cooperate effectively with diverse colleagues.
However, the adoption of inclusion is not straight-forward. For example, organizations have a
hard time to reduce stereotyping of individuals (Kalinoski et al. 2013). Stereotypes can be
defined “as cognitive structures that provide knowledge, beliefs, and expectations about
individuals based on their social group membership” (Quadflieg & Macrae, 2011, p. 216-217).
Stereotyping is thereby linked to inhibited performance. For example, women performed
significantly worse as a leader when they were confronted with the stereotype that “women are
not leaders”, than when they were not aware of this stereotype (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016).
Stereotyping can thus negatively affect individual performance. In order to deal with this
problem organizations can, for example implement diversity training, since it has a positive
effect on reducing stereotyping (Kalinoski et al., 2013). However, it should be taken into account
that it might cost a lot of effort to change the mindset of employees. To conclude, inclusion does
affect individual outcomes but there can be deterrents which might hinder the overall positive
impact of inclusion on individuals.
Effect on group
The following section outlines the effects of an inclusive climate on the group level. The
categorization-elaboration model (CEM) (van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004) explains
how and when diversity leads to better performance. The model suggests that the social
categorization perspective (SCP) and the information/decision-making perspective (IDM)
interact as moderators between diversity and performance. On the one hand, SCP suggests that
individuals are constantly comparing themselves to others within their group (van Knippenberg
2
Introduction
Differences in race, gender, age and background make us who we are. Due to globalization,
organizations face these differences, also referred to as diversity, on a daily basis in the
workforce (Kim & Bhawuk, 2008). Some organizations, such as Google, attempt to use diversity
to their advantage (Brown, 2018), whilst others are still not focused on getting the best out of
their diverse workforce. Although some researchers found positive effects of diversity initiatives
(Erhardt, Werbel, & Shrader, 2003), others found that focusing on diversity initiatives alone is
not enough (Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burks, 2008). Organizations who want to benefit from
their diverse workforce need an inclusive climate. According to Nishii (2013), an inclusive
climate is a climate where the organization reduces bias, integrates differences and includes
employees in decision-making. The aim of this essay is to answer the question how an inclusive
climate affects the individual, group and organizational level outcomes and how these levels
interact. This essay starts with explaining what an inclusive climate is and continues with an
elaboration of how it affects and interacts on the individual, group and organizational level.
What is an inclusive climate?
This section elaborates upon the concept inclusive climate. According to Nishii (2013) a climate
of inclusion exists of three dimensions. The first dimension is targeted at eliminating bias
through the use of fair and diversity specific human resources (HR) practices (Nishii, 2013). For
instance, organizations could use diversity training (Kulik, 2014) or implement recruitment
diversity programs (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). Reducing bias is important as it lowers the
intergroup conflicts at work (Nishii, 2013). Furthermore, the second dimension involves the
integration of differences between diverse employees at work (Nishii, 2013). An example of a
practice targeted at this dimension is appointing a diversity committee to integrate differences at
the workplace (Kalev et al., 2006). Lastly, the third dimension focuses on inclusiveness with
regards to decision making. It reflects to what extent diverse perspectives of employees are
brought to light and integrated (Nishii, 2013). An example of this dimension is inclusive
leadership, as leaders can bring diverse perspectives of employees to light. To conclude, these
dimensions and its examples show that adopting an inclusive climate can have an impact on
different levels of the organization.
1
, Individuals in an inclusive climate
This section explains how an inclusive climate affects the individual level. Firstly, Nishii (2013)
found that an inclusive climate encourages individuals and give them the opportunity to
participate in decision-making. Furthermore, it motivates individuals to include and help fellow
coworkers (Nelissen, Hülsheger, Gemma, & van Ruitenbeek, 2016). What these outcomes have
in common, is that individuals are motivated to display participative behavior, because they have
the opportunity to do so. This is in line with the AMO theory (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg,
Kalleberg, & Bailey, 2000) which suggests that employee motivation is moderated by the
opportunity to display certain behavior (e.g. opportunity to participate in decision-making).
Furthermore, theorizing from the AMO theory (Appelbaum et al., 2000) it is argued that an
inclusive climate can enhance employee ability to cooperate effectively with diverse colleagues.
However, the adoption of inclusion is not straight-forward. For example, organizations have a
hard time to reduce stereotyping of individuals (Kalinoski et al. 2013). Stereotypes can be
defined “as cognitive structures that provide knowledge, beliefs, and expectations about
individuals based on their social group membership” (Quadflieg & Macrae, 2011, p. 216-217).
Stereotyping is thereby linked to inhibited performance. For example, women performed
significantly worse as a leader when they were confronted with the stereotype that “women are
not leaders”, than when they were not aware of this stereotype (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016).
Stereotyping can thus negatively affect individual performance. In order to deal with this
problem organizations can, for example implement diversity training, since it has a positive
effect on reducing stereotyping (Kalinoski et al., 2013). However, it should be taken into account
that it might cost a lot of effort to change the mindset of employees. To conclude, inclusion does
affect individual outcomes but there can be deterrents which might hinder the overall positive
impact of inclusion on individuals.
Effect on group
The following section outlines the effects of an inclusive climate on the group level. The
categorization-elaboration model (CEM) (van Knippenberg, de Dreu & Homan, 2004) explains
how and when diversity leads to better performance. The model suggests that the social
categorization perspective (SCP) and the information/decision-making perspective (IDM)
interact as moderators between diversity and performance. On the one hand, SCP suggests that
individuals are constantly comparing themselves to others within their group (van Knippenberg
2
