Group inclusion in the workplace is still under development and there is not yet an agreement on the construct. Previous research mainly focused on the problems with diversity including affirmative actions, tokenism and discrimination bias. Shore et al. (2011) use Brewer’s optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) to define this construct of employee inclusion and the influence it has on satisfaction and the needs of uniqueness and belongingness in the workplace. This framework can be used for further research and reviewing inclusion and diversion in the workplace.

What is the optimal distinctiveness theory?

Identification with in-groups and out-groups is defines as the identification with social categories and the group. People become attached trough a common connection to the group. Identity contains a social component that involves defining oneself as being an individual. Brewer (1991) argues that people seek balance between uniqueness and individuation. People that choose social identities based upon a group seek acceptance in this group. When an individual feels accepted, this has many advantages.

• People display in-group favouritism, they attribute positive group behaviour to the group and themselves and negative group behaviour to others.

• The trustworthiness, cooperation and loyalty among group members increases;

If group members feel they are too similar, they start seeking distinctiveness. Group members start to define themselves in terms of differentiating characteristics. People tend to socially identify with a group if both the needs for uniqueness and inclusiveness are met. ODT studies show what happens when these needs are at jeopardy. To restore balance, people engage in self-stereotyping, place greater value on social identity and display intergroup differentiation.

What are the roles of belongingness and uniqueness in defining inclusion?

Inclusion is defined as the degree to which an employee feels to be an established member of a group. It includes whether the group treatment and outcomes satisfy the need for uniqueness and belongingness. The inclusion framework proposes uniqueness and belongingness create feelings of inclusion. When a unique individual is an accepted member of the group and the group values the characteristic of uniqueness. A higher value of inclusion can benefit job performance. Work groups with high inclusion values can facilitate collaboration across the organization, demonstrate good analysis and are able to enhance their skills. Exclusion is when a person does not have the feeling to be an organizational insider with a unique value in the work group. The outcomes can be harmful on emotional, cognitive and health level. The proposed inclusion-framework includes four definitions:

1. Exclusion: when an individual is not treated as an insider in the organization containing a unique quality, while others are treated that way.

2. Differentiation: when a person is not treated as an insider, but the organizational and unique quality he or she possesses is seen as a valuable characteristic for organizational success.

3. Assimilation: an individual is treated as an insider, but they need to conform to the dominant/organizational culture that downplays their uniqueness.

4. Inclusion: the individual feels like an insider and is encouraged to maintain the uniqueness within the group.

How is inclusion defined in existing literature?

According to Pelled, Ledford and Mohrman (1999) inclusion is defined as the degree to which an individual is treated and accepted as an insider by other members of the group. Inclusion is the removal of obstacles that stand in the way of full participation in organizations. Miller (1998) described inclusion as the extend to which a diverse person can participate and contribute fully in an organization. Williams, Haugen and Kossek (2008) described inclusion as the feeling of belonging and engage in inclusive behaviours such as valuing contributions from daily life in the organization. A multicultural or inclusive organization is described as an organization that brings members of different groups together and the members also shape the organizational strategy, work, operating systems and management. According to the definitions in existing literature there are two general themes that are consistent with ODT.

1. Belongingness described as acceptance or insiderness is apparent in all definitions.

2. Uniqueness is described in all definitions, for example the appreciation of individual talents or the ability of all employees to contribute fully.

There is a connection between uniqueness and the feeling of acceptance. Stigma’s are characteristics, attributes or experiences that convey an identity that is not valued in certain social settings. People are requested to keep these characteristics hidden, which causes several psychological issues. The model of work group inclusion proposed by Shore at al. (2011) is consistent with three values described in existing literature on inclusiveness:

1. The optimal distinctiveness model (ODT) focuses on the satisfaction of uniqueness needs.

2. There is emphasis in existing literature that individuals should be valued for their unique perspectives.

3. Literature on stigma’s revealed that some characteristics are hidden by individuals to avoid rejection by the group when this unique trait is stigmatized in certain social contexts.

According to Pelled et al. (1999) there are three indicators of inclusion. The first is decision-making influence, second is access to sensitive work information and third is job security. Dissimilarity between race and gender were negatively related to these indicators, whereas similarity in education was positively related. Stamper and Masterson (2002) investigated perceived insider status and found that is was positively related to altruism. Two conclusions can be drawn based upon inclusion literature. The first is that practices associated with insider status can enhance the employees’ perception of inclusion. Second, there are positive consequences of inclusion for work performance and satisfaction.

What is the difference between this inclusion framework and other diversity theories and models?

The distinguishing characteristic of the framework proposed by Shore et al. (2011) is the emphasis on both the feeling of uniqueness and belongingness. Other diversity theories separate these constructs and focus more on one of the other. One example is that people seek to belong to groups that treat in-group members more favourable than out-group members (Byrne, 1971). They focus on demographic factors as predictors of belongingness. However, demographic similarity does not predict the feeling of belongingness to a group (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Many theories emphasize the importance of similarity without acknowledging the need for uniqueness. The emphasis on both belongingness and uniqueness makes this framework a better predictor for inclusion.

What insights should be applied in future research?

The construct of inclusion needs to be fully defined and theory and practice should be enhanced. Shore et al (2011) propose several factors that should be included in future research.

• Contextual factors that contribute to inclusion should be considered. These factors include an inclusive climate, inclusive leadership and inclusive practices.

• Resulting outcomes of inclusion should be considered. There is empirical evidence of the association between inclusion and job satisfaction, but there could be more related factors. One example is that inclusion could predict the intention to leave the company. Interpersonal models can be used to analyse resulting outcomes. For example, the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) can provide a basis for predicting inclusion based on the quality of social exchange relationships.

• The influence of creativity should be considered. Creative individuals often have a great degree of uniqueness. It would be interesting to know how belongingness can enhance uniqueness in (creative) individuals.

What do the researchers conclude?

Success in work is often related to diversity characteristics. For example, Hersch (2008) found that immigrants with the lightest skin colour earned seventeen percent more than other immigrants. This raised interest in the value-in-diversity perspective. Shore et al. (2011) believe that their inclusion framework provides more insight in the feeling of inclusion in the workplace and the connection between the feeling of both uniqueness and belongingness. Only emphasising uniqueness leads to stereotypes and overemphasizing belongingness leads to suppression of background and unique qualities. The focus of inclusion in the workplace should be on maintaining feelings of belongingness and uniqueness at the same time.

BulletPoints

• Identification with in-groups and out-groups is defines as the identification with social categories and the group. People become attached trough a common connection to the group. Identity contains a social component that involves defining oneself as being an individual. Brewer (1991) argues that people seek balance between uniqueness and individuation. People that choose social identities based upon a group seek acceptance in this group.

• A multicultural or inclusive organization is described as an organization that brings members of different groups together and the members also shape the organizational strategy, work, operating systems and management.

ExamTickets

• You should know the optimal distinctiveness theory and its influence on research in inclusiveness.

• The authors argue they propose a new framework compared to existing literature. What is the main difference between the proposed framework and the existing literature on inclusion and diversity in work groups?