Fair Treatment for All: Testing the Predictors of Workplace Inclusion in a Canadian Police Organization

Abstract

The growing diversification of the workforce demands that organizational leaders create workplaces in which individuals have a sense of belonging and are valued for their unique contributions. However, beyond the contributions of certain types of leadership, there is insufficient understanding of the factors that impact experiences of workplace inclusion. Using survey data collected from a Canadian police organization (N = 488) in the spring of 2018, this study examined whether organizational justice (i.e., fair treatment) was positively associated with workplace inclusion, and whether psychological safety mediated the justice–inclusion relationship. The results of structural equation modelling (SEM) revealed that organizational justice was significantly related to inclusion. Organizational justice was also found to indirectly influence perceptions of inclusion, through psychological safety. In other words, when people were treated fairly, they were more likely to indicate their workplace was psychologically safe, which in turn contributed to feelings of inclusion. Finally, the study findings indicated that personal characteristics, including gender, race and occupational role influenced individual experiences of inclusion.

Keywords

Inclusion organizational justice psychological safety police

Introduction

By 2026, the Northern American workforce is expected to be much older and more diverse (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017), meaning that workforce diversity is no longer an option. Despite this reality, traditional approaches to diversity continue to presume that diverse individuals are automatically accepted in the workplace. However, the process of inclusion effectively integrates and values each employee’s unique experiences and perspectives (Chavez & Weisinger, 2008; Roberson, 2006; Stewart et al., 2008). In effect, diversity and inclusion are two distinct concepts. Whereas diversity generally refers to individual differences, such as race, ethnicity, gender, education, job position and/or tenure (Gonzalez & DeNisi, 2009; Homan & Greer, 2013), inclusion represents the extent to which employees are engaged in critical organizational processes (e.g., decision-making; see Mor Barak, 2015; Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998; Roberson, 2006), are encouraged to contribute fully and effectively (Miller, 1998), and are comfortable sharing their full selves with others (Nishii, 2013). In sum, diversity is about the mix, whereas inclusion is about making the mix work (Miller & Katz, 2002).

The positive outcomes of workplace inclusion have been widely examined in recent years (Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Brimhall et al., 2014, 2017; Chung et al., 2020; Gonzalez & Denisi, 2009; Hwang & Hopkins, 2012; Nishii, 2013; Travis & Mor Barak, 2010). To a lesser extent, scholars have also investigated the predictors of inclusion, primarily focusing on the role of leadership; for instance, Cottrill et al. (2014) identified significant correlations between authentic leadership and inclusion. Brimhall et al. (2014) also found that leader–member exchange (LMX) influences job satisfaction by increasing inclusion. Similarly, a recent longitudinal study revealed that high-quality leadership (i.e., the quality of interactions between leaders and followers) is an important predictor of inclusion (Brimhall et al., 2017). While these studies have illustrated the importance of leadership in influencing perceptions of workplace inclusion, the role of other predictors remains largely unexplored. Thus, researchers and practitioners are left with a limited understanding of the factors that contribute to the experience of inclusion in the workplace.

To date, only one study has explored potential predictors of inclusion other than leadership. In testing a model and scale for work group inclusion within a university setting, Chung et al. (2020) determined that leader inclusiveness and a diversity climate were related to inclusion; however, no significant relationship was found between overall justice and inclusion. Notwithstanding the findings of Chung et al. (2020), the nascent literature suggests that fair treatment is a key organizational inclusion behaviour (Sabharwal, 2014; Shore et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2015) that is central to effectively leveraging diversity (Roberson & Stevens, 2006) and creating a climate of inclusion (Nishii, 2010). When someone is treated fairly and with respect, this conveys that the individual is valued and is included as a full member of the group (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; Ellemers et al., 2004; Leary et al., 2003). Further, organizational justice has been found to be related to how employees treat others at work (Chen et al., 2005; Colquitt, 2001; Liao & Rupp, 2005), such as helping others, following organizational rules and avoiding harmful (e.g., gossiping about others), manipulative and self-serving behaviours (Priesemuth et al., 2013). In addition, Rubino et al. (2018, p. 524) suggest that ‘[b]y promoting fairness across all employees when implementing policies, procedures and rewards, [a] justice climate seems to establish expectations for how employees should treat all others (e.g., not harass certain team members; treat members similarly…)’. Therefore, it should be expected that when fair treatment is promoted in the workplace, employees are more likely to feel included.

Considering the recent work of Chung et al. (2020), it may be possible that fairness is a more important variable in some organizational settings. As such, I test this theory in a Canadian police organization, a context in which significant issues of fairness and inclusion have frequently been identified (Workman-Stark, 2017). Specifically, I examine the ways in which organizational justice influences workplace inclusion, and the subsequent effect of inclusion on two positive outcomes: job satisfaction and turnover intentions.

Model Overview and Hypotheses

Workplace Inclusion

Building on traditional definitions and approaches to diversity, initial research into workplace inclusion focused largely on the experiences of traditionally marginalized groups (i.e., women, racial minorities; see Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998; Mor Barak et al., 1998). Yet, recent studies have clarified that inclusion is important for everyone (Ferdman, 2014; Winters, 2014). Inclusion generally refers to a condition in which all employees have a sense of belonging, are valued for their unique characteristics and are encouraged to be authentic and to become involved in the workplace (Miller, 1998; Mor Barak, 2015; Nishii, 2013; Roberson, 2006; Shore et al., 2011). Inclusion can also be considered as a process that involves human relationships and how people experience these relationships (Ferdman et al., 2010). In this context, inclusion ‘creat[es] the conditions in which individuals can feel safe, valued and fully engaged, while believing that they can be fully themselves in ways that recognize, honor and appreciate their full range of social identities’ (Ferdman et al., 2010, p. 10).

According to social identity theory, an important definition of self is achieved by belonging to specific groups that enjoy distinct and positive identities (Tajfel, 1982), and positively reinforce one’s self-image (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Hogg & White, 1995). Positive social identities encourage individuals to establish a connection and a sense of belonging with in-group members and to differentiate themselves from out-group members (Hogg & McGarty 1990). Social identity theory also helps explain why people join certain groups and why they interact with others in certain ways. Through the process of social identification, people become attached to one another based on their common connection to a social group. What is more, when group members perceive they share similarities with other group members, their feelings of trust and being accepted by others can increase (Tajfel, 1982), which in turn can enhance feelings of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011).

However, having a sense of belonging with other group members is just one dimension of inclusion. Another aspect pertains to an individual’s unique characteristics and the degree to which they are valued by the organization (Mor Barak, 2017; Nishii, 2013; Shore et al., 2011). Optimal distinctiveness theory proposes that people seek a balance between belonging to a larger group and being recognized for their unique characteristics (Brewer, 1991). Thus, the idea of full inclusion is achieved when individuals feel that they are both accepted and valued by the organization (Greenberg et al., 2007; Guimond, 2006; Nishii, 2013; Shore et al., 2011).

The growing literature on workplace inclusion suggests that creating inclusive workplaces leads to affective well-being (Le et al., 2018), creativity and innovation (Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Chung et al., 2020), job satisfaction (Brimhall et al., 2017; Mor Barak & Levin, 2002; Nishii, 2013), organizational commitment (Gonzalez & Denisi, 2009; Mor Barak et al., 2006; Nishii, 2013), enhanced individual performance (Chung et al., 2020; Dwertmann & Boehm, 2016), employee helping behaviour (Chung et al., 2020), lower turnover intentions (Brimhall et al., 2014, 2017; Gonzalez & Denisi, 2009; Hwang & Hopkins, 2012; Travis & Mor Barak, 2010) and reduced conflict (Nishii, 2013). Based on prior research, I hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: Workplace inclusion will be positively related to (a) job satisfaction and (b) lower turnover intentions.

Organizational Justice and Inclusion

Organizational justice refers to employee assessments of whether they are treated fairly by authority figures within the organization (Roberson & Colquitt, 2005; Whitman et al., 2012). Organizational policies and practices are judged as fair if they are ethical (Leventhal, 1980), applied accurately and consistently (De Cremer, 2004; Leventhal, 1980; van den Bos et al., 1996) and can be corrected (Leventhal, 1980). In his conceptualization of organizational justice, Colquitt (2001) proposed four related, yet distinct factors: distributive justice (i.e., fair and equitable outcomes), procedural justice (i.e., processes that give employees a voice and adhere to procedural rules—ethical, accurate, consistent and bias-free), informational justice (i.e., explanations are reasonable and timely) and interpersonal justice (i.e., employees are treated politely, with dignity and respect). Alternatively, other scholars have tended to combine informational and interpersonal justice under the category of interactional justice (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Whitman et al., 2012). Taking this one step further, Tyler and colleagues (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Tyler & Blader, 2003) integrated procedural justice with interactional justice based on the premise that fair processes, treating people with respect and providing timely and reasonable explanations have few conceptual differences. In the current study, I follow Tyler and Blader’s two-dimensional approach for measuring organizational justice.

Prior studies have shown that organizational justice is related to the ways in which employees treat others at work (Chen et al., 2005; Colquitt, 2001; Liao & Rupp, 2005), such as helping others, following organizational rules, and engaging in less harmful behaviours (Priesemuth et al., 2013). Further, fair treatment signals to group members that they are valued and included by the group (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; Ellemers et al., 2004; Leary et al., 2003). Through survey data collected from Australian employees, Le et al. (2018) determined that organizational inclusion was positively related to perceptions of justice (i.e., distributive and procedural justice), and that perceptions of justice mediated the relationship between organizational inclusion and well-being. Based on a review of the literature, I propose that when employees are treated fairly, they are more likely to feel included.

Hypothesis 2a: Distributive justice will be positively associated with workplace inclusion.

Hypothesis 2b: Procedural justice will be positively associated with workplace inclusion.

The Mediating Effect of Psychological Safety

In the workplace, the level of respect and influence associated with an individual is often based on some characteristics (Anderson et al., 2001), such as age, education, race/ethnicity, gender, or organizational position (Bacharach et al., 1993). As high-status individuals are more likely to be asked for their opinions, they are unlikely to perceive the same level of interpersonal risk associated with speaking up that is experienced by others of lower status (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Speaking up freely occurs when people believe that doing so will be effective, and they are not too concerned about the disapproval of others and/or the negative personal consequences that might occur as a result (Ashford et al., 1998; Miceli & Near, 1992; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). This state of psychological safety refers to an employee’s ‘sense of being able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career’ (Kahn, 1990, p. 708).

While the mediating role of psychological safety in the organizational justice–inclusion relationship has not yet been tested, there are several studies that suggest that psychological safety mediates the relationships between various climate factors and employee outcomes; for instance, Edmondson (1999) demonstrated that psychological safety mediated the relationship between team leader coaching and learning behaviours. Similarly, Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) showed that psychological safety mediated the inclusive leadership–employee engagement relationship. In the context of a supportive diversity climate, Singh et al. (2013) found that psychological safety facilitated performance behaviours. Singh et al. (2015) also determined that psychological safety mediated the relationship between organizational support and organizational embeddedness.

Prior research suggests that most employees desire justice in the work place, that justice is a necessary condition for a psychologically safe environment (Edmondson et al., 2001; Haynie et al., 2016; Kahn, 1990; Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Tyler & Blader, 2003), and that psychological safety is an important inclusive factor (Nishii, 2013; Shore et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2015). Further, Lyu (2016) showed that psychological safety partially mediated the effect of organizational justice on work engagement. Based on the foregoing, I propose that psychological safety will partially mediate the justice–inclusion relationship.

Hypothesis 3a: Distributive justice will influence workplace inclusion through psychological safety.

Hypothesis 3b: Procedural justice will influence workplace inclusion through psychological safety.

Personal Characteristics and Inclusion

Prior research has shown that personal characteristics, such as gender, age, education, job position, tenure and race, influence individual perceptions of inclusion (Brimhall et al., 2014; Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Mor Barak et al., 2015; Nishii, 2013). In Canada, policing is a paramilitary, male-dominated occupation with only 22 per cent women, 4 per cent of officers identifying as Indigenous, and 12 per cent identifying as belonging to a visible minority group (Conor, 2018). As such, White, male and higher-ranking officers are more likely to hold higher status, and therefore, to report higher levels of workplace inclusion. Accordingly, I hypothesize that within a policing context:

Hypotheses 4: Gender (a), race (b) and organizational level (c) will be significantly associated with workplace inclusion, with women, racially diverse and nonsupervisory employees less likely to report feeling included.

From 2003 to 2017, Canadian policing experienced a significant increase in the number of civilian employees (42%), which now account for 30 per cent of all police personnel (Conor, 2018). Despite this growth, studies continue to show that civilian staff frequently experience difficulties integrating into the policing environment. Recent research, sponsored by Public Safety Canada, identified several reasons that might explain this situation, including: (a) the limited acceptance of civilians performing duties that have been traditionally undertaken by police officers, (b) the challenges of civilians fitting into the police culture, and (c) the general opposition of some police associations (i.e., unions) to hiring civilian personnel (Kiedrowski et al., 2015). Using data from 19 police departments in the USA, Alderden and Skogan (2014) found that the poor acceptance of civilian employees by their police officer colleagues was a key factor affecting job satisfaction. A similar work in Canada has highlighted the status differences between civilian staff and police officers, with civilian staff tending to report feeling less included and valued (Workman-Stark, 2017). Based on the foregoing, I hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 5: Employee role (i.e., civilian vs. police officer) will be significantly related to workplace inclusion, with civilian staff less likely to report feelings of inclusion than their police officer colleagues.

The theoretical model for this study is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: The author.

Methods

Sample and Procedures

For the current study, I leveraged secondary survey data collected from a large Canadian police organization (i.e., approximately 1,000 employees, including civilian employees and police officers) in the spring/summer of 2018. To test the study hypotheses, I incorporated the variables of organizational justice, psychological safety and inclusion. Based on the positive relationship identified between leader inclusiveness and work group inclusion by Chung et al. (2020), I also incorporated the variable of inclusive leadership to test whether organizational justice contributed to inclusion after controlling for inclusive leadership. Additionally, the study included the following demographic variables: gender, ethnicity, occupational role, tenure and level in the organization. Finally, I included self-reporting survey data as it has been shown to more accurately reflect individual perceptions of the workplace.

For the original workplace assessment, the survey link was sent to all employees via an email message from the Chief of Police. Employees were not provided with any incentive to participate in the study and were assured anonymity in their responses.

Measures

Each of the scale items was derived from previous empirical studies, and subsequently reviewed by organizational representatives to ensure validity. Unless specified, each item was assessed on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Organizational justice (IV): Four items for procedural justice (PJ) and four items for distributive justice (DJ) were taken from Colquitt’s (2001) multidimensional scale for organizational justice to reflect individual perceptions of the fairness of processes, interactions and outcome decisions. Sample items for PJ include: ‘I am given an opportunity to voice my opinions about decisions that affect me.’; and ‘I am provided with explanations for decisions made’. Sample items for DJ include: ‘Compared with other people in the workplace, I am satisfied with the recognition that I receive.’; and ‘I think that I am poorly recognized for the work that I do.’ (reverse coded).

Inclusive leadership: Four items from Nembhard and Edmondson’s (2006) scale for leader inclusiveness were used for this study. Sample items include: ‘My supervisor encourages multiple points of view’; and ‘My supervisor invites input from others’.

Psychological safety (mediator): For the purposes of this study, psychological safety was assessed with three items from Edmondson’s (1999) psychological safety scale. Items included: ‘People are able to bring up problems and tough issues without fear of repercussions.’; ‘When people make a mistake it is often held against them.’; and ‘People are able to take risks in trying new ways of doings things.’.

Inclusion (DV): Four items were adapted from prior studies to reflect both dimensions of belongingness and uniqueness (O’Reilly et al., 2015; Shore et al., 2011). Sample items include: ‘My unique skills and talents are valued.’; and ‘I am treated with respect’.

Outcomes Variables (DVs)

Turnover intentions (DV): One item was rated on a scale of 1(never) to 5 (very often). ‘Taking everything into consideration, how likely is that you will make a genuine effort to find a new job with a different employer within the next year?’.

Job satisfaction (DV):Three items were used to assess job satisfaction (Munsch et al., 2018); including: ‘All in all, how satisfied are you with your current job?’; ‘Knowing what you know now, how likely would you do this same job’; and ‘How likely are you to recommend this job to someone else?’. The first item was rated on a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied), with the remaining two items rated on a scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely).

Control variables: Based on prior research (Heilman et al., 1992; Mor Barak et al., 1998), I controlled for gender, race, role and organizational level to potentially account for any observed relationships resulting from demographic differences. Gender, race and role were self-reported and coded as 0 = female, 1 = male; 0 = non-White, 1 = White and 0 = civilian employee; 1 = police officer. Level within the organization was recoded into a dichotomous variable, with 0 = nonsupervisor, 1 = supervisor.

To reduce the potential for common method bias, a few recommended techniques were employed in the original workplace assessment. First, methodological and psychological separation were established through both closed and open-ended questions (Podsakoff et al., 2003), and different Likert scales (i.e., number of scale points and anchors; Podsakoff et al., 2012). Measures from the same construct were also proximally separated (Tourangeau et al., 2000; Weijters et al., 2009). In addition, ambiguous or strongly worded items were revised based on consultation with representatives from the organization. Finally, the survey incorporated both negatively and positively worded items.

Analyses

I conducted confirmatory analyses using the covariance–variance matrix and maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS version 26. Consistent with Berdahl et al. (2018), errors were permitted to correlate for items loading on the same factor; however, errors were not allowed to correlate across factors. Following the recommendation of Hair et al. (2010), model fit was assessed based on model chi-square (χ²), the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA). Models are deemed to have good fit if values for the CFI and TLI are close to 0.95 and 0.06 or less for the RMSEA (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The single-indicator variable, turnover intentions, was excluded from the measurement model.

Following initial CFAs, two inclusion items were deleted due to poor loadings. The results of the revised CFA indicated that the six-factor model had good fit, x²(181) = 353.01, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.04; factor loadings ranged from 0.60 to 0.93 (all ps < 0.001). The average variance extracted (AVE) for five of the six variables exceeded the standard acceptable value of 0.50 (distributive justice = 0.60; procedural justice = 0.51; inclusive leadership = 0.67; inclusion = 0.51; job satisfaction = 0.64), with the AVE for psychological safety just below this threshold (0.47) but still within the acceptable range (Hair et al., 2010). Each of the six factors also demonstrated strong internal consistency, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of greater than 0.70: distributive justice (0.89), procedural justice (0.84), inclusive leadership (0.88), psychological safety (0.73), inclusion (0.82) and job satisfaction (0.87). To test the study hypotheses, I employed structural equation modelling (SEM) in AMOS 26, controlling for gender, race, role and level, as well as inclusive leadership in all analyses. The latent factors were permitted to correlate with each other and with the observed variables. To test the possible mediating effects, I employed a bootstrapping method with 5,000 resamples and a 95 per cent confidence interval.

Results

The final sample (N = 488) represented an approximate response rate of 48.8 per cent and was largely reflective of the total population: 57 per cent male (SD = 0.50), 93 per cent White (SD = 0.26) and 62 per cent police officers (SD = 0.49). Additionally, respondents had between 10–14 years (22.3%) and 15–19 (25.2%) years of service and 68.9 per cent were in a nonsupervisory role. Means, standard deviations and correlations are shown in Table 1. As Table 1 reveals, both distributive and procedural justice were significantly correlated with psychological safety, inclusion and the outcome variables. In turn, psychological safety was highly correlated with inclusion, and inclusion was found to be significantly associated with both job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. In addition, gender, race, level and occupational role (i.e., civilian staff vs. police officer) were found to be significantly related to inclusion.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Distributive justice	4.60	1.52	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
2. Procedural justice	3.91	1.48	0.644**	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
3. Inclusive leadership	5.12	1.46	0.538**	0.496**	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
4. Psychological safety	3.64	1.41	0.524**	0.572**	0.358**	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
5. Inclusion	4.60	1.40	0.710**	0.643**	0.475**	0.543**	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
6. Job satisfaction	5.02	1.66	0.538**	0.460**	0.349**	0.453**	0.543**	–	–	–	–	–	–
7. Turnover	2.06	1.62	−0.328**	−0.265**	−0.265**	−0.277**	−0.269**	−0.404**	–	–	–	–	–
7. Gender	0.57	0.50	0.113*	0.080	0.173**	0.097*	0.200**	−0.017	−0.024	–	–	–	–
8. Level	0.31	0.670	0.127*	0.054	0.105*	0.212**	0.110*	0.049	−0.060	0.148**	–	–	–
9. Race	0.93	0.258	−0.008	0.090*	−0.018	0.070	0.094*	0.024	0.005	0.045	−0.089*	–	–
10. Role	0.62	0.486	0.056	0.020	0.136*	0.043	0.160**	−0.110*	−0.073	0.504**	0.188**	0.060	–
11. Tenure	3.73	1.56	−0.003	−0.068	−0.009	0.066	−0.049	−0.027	−0.058	0.034	0.304**	0.018	0.151**

Source: The author.

Notes: N = 488; gender (0 = female, 1 = male); race (0 = non-White, 1 = White); level (0 = nonsupervisor, 1 = supervisor); tenure (1 = less than 5 years, 2 = 5–9 years, 3 = 10–14 years, 4 = 15–19 years, 5 = 20–24 years and 6 = 25 years or more).

*p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01.

As shown in Table 2, the SEM model supported the first group of hypotheses, revealing a strong association between inclusion and the outcome variables of job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. The second group of hypotheses predicted that organizational justice (i.e., as measured by distributive and procedural justice) would be positively related to inclusion. As expected, organizational justice was strongly associated with inclusion, thereby providing support for the second group of hypotheses. Further, the third group of hypotheses proposed that psychological safety would partially mediate the relationship between organizational justice and inclusion. As demonstrated in Table 2, distributive and procedural justice were both significantly related to psychological safety. In turn, psychological safety was significantly related to inclusion. Further, Table 3 illustrates that the direct and indirect effects of the justice–inclusion relationships were significant, thereby providing support for the partial mediating role of psychological safety and the third group of hypotheses. Hypothesis 4 predicted that gender, race and level would be positively associated with perceptions of inclusion. Similarly, Hypothesis 5 predicted the employee role would be positively related to inclusion. Table 2 illustrates that employees’ gender, race and role (but not level) were significantly associated with inclusion. Independent t-tests confirmed that men (M = 4.84, SD = 1.33) were significantly more likely than women (M = 4.28, SD = 1.43) to indicate they were included [t(486) = −4.498, p = 0.000]. Similarly, police officers (M = 4.77, SD = 1.36) were also significantly more likely than civilian employees (M = 4.31, SD = 1.42) to report that they were included, t(486) = −3.565, p = 0.000. Finally, White employees (M = 4.63, SD = 1.39) reported higher levels of inclusion than racially diverse employees (M = 4.13, SD = 1.4), t(486) = −2.071, p = 0.039. Thus, Hypotheses 4a, 4b and 5 were supported.

Table 2.

Test of Hypotheses Using Structural Equation Modelling

Hypotheses	Paths	Standardized Estimates
Hypothesis 1	Inclusion → Job satisfaction	0.54***
	Inclusion → Turnover intentions	−0.27***
Hypothesis 2	DJ → Inclusion	0.45***
	PJ → Inclusion	0.24***
Hypothesis 3	DJ → PS	0.27***
	PJ → PS	0.40***
	PS → Inclusion	0.15***
Hypothesis 4	Gender → Inclusion	0.07*
	Race → Inclusion	0.06*
	Level → Inclusion	−0.02
Hypothesis 5	Role → Inclusion	0.08**

Source: The author.

Notes: DJ stands for distributive justice; PJ for procedural justice; and PS for psychological safety.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001.

Table 3.

Mediation Model

		Inclusion (Standardized Estimates)
Distributive justice	Total effect	0.453***
	Direct effect	0.455***
	Indirect effect^a	0.039***
Procedural justice	Total effect	0.300***
	Direct effect	0.259***
	Indirect effect^a	0.059***

Source: The author.

Notes:^aMediated by psychological safety.

***p < 0.001.

Considering the male-dominated nature of the policing environment, I also ran separate analyses by gender. Table 4 illustrates that justice was both directly and indirectly related to inclusion for both groups. However, distributive justice was seemingly more important for women, whereas procedural justice appeared to be more important for men. In addition, both race and role (but not level) were significantly related to perceptions of inclusion for female employees; yet, none of these personal characteristics had any effect for men.

Table 4.

Test of Hypotheses Using Structural Equation Modelling by Gender

Hypotheses	Paths	Standardized Estimates
Hypotheses	Paths	Men	Women
Hypothesis 1	Inclusion → Job satisfaction	0.55***	0.57***
	Inclusion → Turnover intentions	−0.27***	−0.28***
Hypothesis 2	DJ → Inclusion	0.36***	0.41***
	PJ → Inclusion	0.18***	0.18**
Hypothesis 3	DJ → PS	0.30***	0.44***
	PJ → PS	0.47***	0.25***
	PS → Inclusion	0.35***	0.31***
Hypothesis 4	Race → Inclusion	0.03	0.09*
	Role → Inclusion	0.07	0.09*
	Level → Inclusion	−0.04	0.02

Source: The author.

Notes: DJ stands for distributive justice; PJ for procedural justice; and PS for psychological safety.

^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01 and ^***p < 0.001.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to address the gap in the inclusion literature by exploring additional predictors of workplace inclusion and the potential intervening mechanisms. Using data from collected from a Canadian police organization, this study tested whether organizational justice contributed to workplace inclusion, and whether this relationship was partially mediated by psychological safety. After controlling for personal characteristics and t variable of inclusive leadership, the findings revealed that distributive and procedural justice were significantly associated with psychological safety, although procedural justice had the strongest effect. In turn, psychologically safety was significantly related to inclusion, which indicated that psychological safety partially explained the justice–inclusion relationships. Further, distributive and procedural justice were also positively associated with inclusion, with distributive rather than procedural justice having a much greater effect on inclusion.

In general, when organizational members perceived that outcomes were distributed equitably and they were treated fairly, they were more likely to feel included. At the same time, positive justice perceptions contributed to psychological safety, which in turn influenced perceptions of workplace inclusion. These findings are consistent with the study hypotheses and demonstrate that organizational justice contributes both directly and indirectly to the experience of inclusion. These findings are also consistent with prior research that demonstrated the mediating effect of psychological safety on organizational justice (Lyu, 2016). In line with prior studies, inclusion was also found to be significantly related to higher job satisfaction and reduced turnover intentions, thereby continuing to illustrate the positive outcomes of inclusion for both individuals and the organization. As expected, the results demonstrated that White, male employees and police officers (rather than civilian staff) were more likely to report feeling included at work.

An interesting finding was that when separate analyses were conducted based on gender, the results suggested that race and role influenced individual perceptions of inclusion for women, but not for men. Additionally, distributive justice was seemingly more important for women, whereas procedural justice appeared to be more important for men. In short, the findings suggested that female employees were more likely to be concerned about the fairness of outcomes rather than the fairness of processes and interactions.

Implications for Research

This study contributes to the literature on workplace inclusion in several important ways. First, to the best of my knowledge, it is one of only a few studies to consider the effects of organizational justice on workplace inclusion; for example, Shore et al. (2011) proposed a model for work group inclusion in which an inclusive climate, inclusive leadership and inclusive practices were theorized as antecedents for employee perceptions of work group inclusion (i.e., the fulfilment of belongingness and uniqueness needs). Subsequent testing of the model and scale determined that diversity climate and leader inclusiveness were significantly related to inclusion; however, overall justice was not (Chung et al., 2020). Taking a slightly different approach, Le et al. (2018) tested a model in which perceptions of organizational justice mediated the relationship between organization inclusion and affective well-being. In line with Chung et al. (2020), the current study investigated organizational justice as an antecedent to workplace inclusion with one significant difference—organizational justice was found to be positively related to inclusion. Second, this is the only known study to examine the moderating effect of psychological safety on the justice–inclusion relationship, and to provide the first empirical evidence that fair treatment contributes to workplace inclusion, both directly and indirectly, through psychological safety. Third, whereas the previous studies were undertaken in a university setting, the current study utilized data collected from a Canadian police organization; an occupational context in which issues of systemic racism and gender discrimination have become amplified through the #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo movements.

The current study also replicated previous findings of the outcomes of inclusion, namely that workplace inclusion contributed to job satisfaction and lower intentions to leave (Brimhall et al., 2014, 2017; Gonzalez & Denisi, 2009; Mor Barak & Levin, 2002; Nishii, 2013; Travis & Mor Barak, 2010). Finally, in line with prior research (Brimhall et al., 2014; Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Mor Barak et al., 2015; Nishii, 2013), the current study illustrated that personal characteristics (i.e., gender, role and race) influence individual perceptions of inclusion. Taken together, the study findings make a significant contribution to the study of workplace inclusion.

Implications for Practice

This study provides important implications for organizational leaders seeking to create more inclusive workplaces; for example, in recent years, police organizations in Canada and other parts of the world have been challenged with promoting a more inclusive environment for women and minorities (Broderick, 2016; Government of South Australia, 2016; US DOJ, 2015; Victoria Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, 2015; Workman-Stark, 2017); however, in the absence of empirical evidence of the factors that promote inclusion, these efforts have largely been focused on traditional types of change, such as increasing the numbers of underrepresented groups and introducing diversity training (Workman-Stark, 2017). The results of this study offer a meaningful avenue for positive change. Specifically, the findings suggest that fair treatment, especially, the implementation of fair processes, interactions and outcomes, is not only important for all employees, it may be particularly important for women, racialized individuals and employees holding certain occupational roles, such as civilian staff within a policing environment. By ensuring that all employees have a voice, treating people with dignity and respect, and implementing fair policies and practices, leaders are likely to engender an environment in which all employees, including employees from traditionally marginalized groups, can experience inclusion in the workplace. Further, prior studies have shown that when organizations promote fairness in the workplace, expectations are seemingly established for how people should treat others, such as refraining from harassment and treating colleagues the same regardless of their differences in personal characteristics (Rubino et al., 2018).

While the current study included data collected from only one Canadian police organization, the findings are generalizable to other policing jurisdictions due to extensive cross-jurisdictional research that has highlighted similarities in police occupational culture and identity, and the overall process of how officers are socialized (Workman-Stark, 2017). The results may also be applicable to other hierarchical, male-dominated occupations, such as military and firefighting.

Limitations

Although this study makes several contributions to research and practice, it is not without limitations. First, the sample was relatively White. Second, by examining only one organization within one industry, this study overlooks other factors that might have influenced the relationships that were found; for instance, the #BlackLivesMatter movement, which continues to scrutinize the actions of the police in situations involving suspected misuse of force and other forms of misconduct, may have potentially affected the study outcomes. Another limitation of this study is that it was cross-sectional; therefore, no claims can be made about causality. Future research should incorporate multimethod, longitudinal designs to demonstrate causation. Additionally, one of the measures contained a single item, which increases the potential for measurement error. Finally, this study relied on individual perceptions about the workplace, which may be susceptible to individual biases rather than reflect the reality of the group. In addition, all studies that have explored the link between justice and inclusion have also utilized different inclusion scales, which may partially explain the different results. Despite these limitations, the study offers one of the first attempts to examine the links between organizational justice and workplace inclusion.

Conclusions

This study offers a significant contribution to the existing literature in that it provides the first evidence that organizational justice (i.e., fair treatment) is an important antecedent for workplace inclusion. The study also demonstrates that when people perceive they are treated fairly, they are more likely to perceive that the workplace is psychologically safe—a necessary condition for speaking up and sharing ideas without fear of negative personal consequences. In turn, people are more likely to feel included. What is more, the study indicates that people’s interpretations of their workplace experiences can be influenced by personal characteristics, such as gender, race and occupational role. Finally, the findings from this study suggest that implementing fair and inclusive practices and treating all people respectfully, along with efforts to encourage more supportive behaviours, are likely to lead to a more inclusive workplace for all employees.

Footnotes

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson

, John

O. P.

, Keltner

, & Kring

A. M.

(2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 116–132.

Alderden

, & Skogan

(2014). The place of civilians in policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 37(2), 259–284.

Ashford

S. J.

, Rothbard

N. P.

, Piderit

S. K.

, & Dutton

J. E.

(1998). Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393590

Ashforth

B. E.

, & Kreiner

G. E.

(1999). How can you do it? Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 413–434.

Bacharach

S. B.

, Bamberger

, & Mundell

(1993). Status inconsistency in organizations: From social hierarchy to stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 21–36.

Berdahl

J. L.

, Cooper

, Glick

, & Alonso

N. M.

(2018). Development and Validation of the Masculinity Contest Culture Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 449-476. https://0-doi-org.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/10.1111/josi.12280

Blader

S. L.

, & Tyler

T. R.

(2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra role behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445–464.

Brewer

M. B.

(1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.

Brimhall

K. C.

, Lizano

E. L.

, & Mor Barak

LLe

(2014). The mediating role of inclusion: A longitudinal study of the effects of leader–member exchange and diversity climate on job satisfaction and intention to leave among child welfare workers. Children & Youth Services Review, 40, 79–88.

10.

Brimhall

K. C.

, Mor Barak

, Hurlburt

, McArdle

J. J.

, Palinkas

, & Henwood

(2017). Increasing workplace inclusion: The promise of leader-member exchange. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(3), 222–239.

11.

Brimhall

K. C.

, & Mor Barak

M. E.

(2018). The critical role of workplace inclusion in fostering innovation, job satisfaction, and quality of care in a diverse human service organization. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership and Governance, 42(5), 474–492. https://0-doi-org.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/10.1080/23303131.2018.1526151

12.

Broderick

(2016). Culture change: Gender diversity and inclusion in the Australian Federal Police. https://www.afp.gov.au/sites/default/files/PDF/Reports/Cultural-Change-Report-2016.pdf

13.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017). Monthly labor review. United States Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/projections-overview-and-highlights-2016-26.htm

14.

Chavez

C. I.

, & Weisinger

J. Y.

(2008). Beyond diversity training: A social infusion for cultural inclusion. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 331.

15.

Chen

X. P.

, Lam

S. S. K.

, Naumann

S. E.

, & Schaubroeck

(2005b). Group citizenship behavior: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of its antecedents and consequences. Management and Organization Review, 1, 273–300.

16.

Chung

B. G.

, Ehrhart

K. H.

, Shore

L. M.

, Randel

A. E.

, Dean

M. A.

, & Kedharnath

(2020). Work group inclusion: Test of a scale and model. Group & Organization Management, 45(1), 75–102.

17.

Colquitt

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

18.

Conor

(2018). Police resources in Canada, 2017. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2018001/article/54912-eng.htm

19.

Cottrill

, Lopez

P. D.

, & Hoffman

C. C.

(2014). How authentic leadership and inclusion benefit organizations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 33, 275–292.

20.

De Cremer

(2004). The influence of accuracy as a function of leader’s bias: The role of trustworthiness in the psychology of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 293–304.

21.

De Cremer

, & Tyler

T. R.

(2005). Am I respected or not? Inclusion and reputation as issues in group membership. Social Justice Research, 18, 121–152.

22.

Dwertmann

D. J. G.

, & Boehm

S. A.

(2016). Status matters: The asymmetric effects of supervisor–subordinate disability incongruence and climate for inclusion. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 44–64.

23.

Edmondson

A. C.

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

24.

Edmondson

A. C.

, Bohmer

R. M.

, & Pisano

G. P.

(2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716.

25.

Ellemers

, de Gilder

, & Haslam

S. A.

(2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478.

26.

Ferdman

B. M.

, Avigdor

, Braun

, Konkin

, & Kuzmycz

(2010). Collective experience of inclusion, diversity, and performance in work groups. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 11(3), 6–26. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1590/S1678-69712010000300003

27.

Ferdman

B. M.

(2014). The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations. In Ferdman

B. M.

, and Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 3–54). Jossey-Bass.

28.

Gonzalez

J. A.

, & DeNisi

A. S.

(2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 21–40.

29.

Government of South Australia, Equal Opportunity Commission (2016). Sex discrimination, sexual harassment and predatory in South Australia Police, Independent Review. http://www.eoc.sa.gov.au/eo-resources/EOC-Independent-Review

30.

Hair

J. F.

, Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, & Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

31.

Haynie

J. J.

, Mossholder

K. W.

, & Harris

S. G.

(2016). Justice and job engagement: The role of senior management trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(6), 889.

32.

Heilman

M. E.

, Block

C. J.

, & Lucas

J. A.

(1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 536–544.

33.

Hogg

M. A.

, & McGarty

(1990). Self-categorization and social identity. In Abrams

, Hogg

M. A.

(Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 10−27). Springer-Verlag.

34.

Hogg

M. A.

, & White

D. J.

(1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255–269.

35.

Homan

A. C.

, & Greer

L. L.

(2013). Considering diversity: The positive effects of considerate leadership in diverse teams. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 105–125.

36.

, & Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

37.

Hwang

, & Hopkins

(2012). Organizational inclusion, commitment, and turnover among child welfare workers: A multilevel mediation analysis. Administration in Social Work, 36(1), 23–39.

38.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

39.

Kiedrowski

, Melchers

R.-F.

, Ruddell

, & Petrunik

(2015). The civilianization of police in Canada (Research Report: 2015-R042). Public Safety Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r042/2015-r042-en.pdf

40.

, Jiang

, Fujimoto

, & Nielsen

(2018). Inclusion and affective well-being: Roles of justice perceptions. Personnel Review, 47(4), 805–820.

41.

Leary

M. R.

, Gallagher

, Fors

, Buttermore

, Baldwin

K. K.

, & Mills

(2003). The invalidity of disclaimers about the effects of social feedback on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 623–636.

42.

Leventhal

G. S.

(1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of justice in social relationships. In Gergen

, Greenberg

, & Willis

(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in experimental and social psychology (vol. 9, pp. 91–113). Plenum.

43.

Liao

, & Rupp

D. E.

(2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 242–256.

44.

Lyu

(2016). Effect of organizational justice on work engagement with psychological safety as a mediator: Evidence from China. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 44(8), 1359–1370.

45.

Miceli

M. P.

, & Near

J. P.

(1992). Blowing the Whistle. Lexington Books.

46.

Miller

F. A.

(1998). Strategic culture change: The door to achieving high performance and inclusion. Public Personnel Management, 27, 151–160.

47.

Miller

F. A.

, & Katz

J. H.

(2002). The inclusion breakthrough: Unleashing the real power of diversity. Berrett-Koehler.

48.

Mor Barak

M. E.

(2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is inclusion? Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership and Governance, 39, 83–88.

49.

Mor Barak

M. E.

(2017). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive work place (4th ed.). SAGE.

50.

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(1), 47–64.

51.

Mor Barak

M. E.

, & Levin

(2002). Outside of the corporate mainstream and excluded from the work community: A study of diversity, job satisfaction and well-being. Work & Family, 5(2), 133–157.

52.

Mor Barak

M. E.

, Levin

, Nissly

J. A.

, & Lane

C. J.

(2006). Why do they leave? Modeling child welfare workers’ turnover intentions. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(5), 548–577. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.06.003

53.

Mor Barak

M. M.

, Cherin

D. A.

, & Berkman

(1998). Organization and personal dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(1), 82.

54.

Munsch

C. L.

, Weaver

J. R.

, Bosson

J. K.

, & O’Connor

L. T.

(2018). Everybody but me: Pluralistic ignorance and the masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 551–578.

55.

Nembhard

I. M.

, & Edmondson

A. C.

(2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 941–966.

56.

Nishii

L. H.

(2010). The benefits of climate for inclusion for diverse groups (Unpublished Paper). Cornell University.

57.

Nishii

(2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774.

58.

Nishii

L. H.

, & Mayer

D. M.

(2009). Do inclusive leaders help reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1412–1426.

59.

O’Reilly

, Robinson

S. L.

, Berdahl

J. L.

, & Banki

(2015). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 26(3), 774–793.

60.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/login.aspx?

61.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Lee

J.-Y.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common methods bias in behavioral research: A critical review of literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

62.

Priesemuth

, Arnaud

, & Schminke

(2013). Bad behavior in groups: The impact of overall justice climate and functional dependence on counterproductive work behavior in work units. Group and Organization Management, 38, 230–257.

63.

Roberson

Q. M.

(2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group and Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236.

64.

Roberson

Q. M.

, & Colquitt

J. A.

(2005). Shared and configural justice: A social network model of justice in teams. Academy of Management Review, 30, 595–607.

65.

Roberson

Q. M.

, & Stevens

C. K.

(2006). Making sense of diversity in the workplace: Organizational justice and language abstraction in employees’ accounts of diversity-related incidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 379–391.

66.

Rubino

, Avery

D. R.

, McKay

P. F.

, Moore

B. L.

, Wilson

D. C.

, Driel

M. S.

, & McDonald

D. P.

(2018). And justice for all: How organizational justice climate deters sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 71(4), 519–544.

67.

Sabharwal

(2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197–217. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0091026014522202

68.

Shore

L. M.

, Randel

A. E.

, Chung

B. G.

, Dean

M. A.

, & Ehrhart

K. H.

(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289.

69.

Shore

L. M.

, Cleveland

J. N.

, & Sanchez

(2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189.

70.

Singh

, Winkel

D. E.

, & Selvarajan

T. T.

(2013). Managing diversity at work: Does psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee performance? Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 86(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12015

71.

Skarlicki

D. P.

, & Folger

(1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.

72.

Stewart

, Crary

, & Humbred

(2008). Teaching value in diversity: On the folly of espousing inclusion, while practicing exclusion. Academy of Management, 7(2), 374–386.

73.

Tajfel

(1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press.

74.

Tang

, Jiang

, Chen

, Zhou

, Chen

C. C.

, & Yu

(2015). Inclusion and inclusion management in the Chinese context: An exploratory study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 856–874. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/09585192.985326

75.

Tourangeau

, Rips

L. J.

, & Rasinski

(Eds.). (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.

76.

Travis

D. J.

, & Mor Barak

M. E.

(2010). Fight or flight? Factors influencing child welfare workers’ propensity to seek positive change or disengage from their jobs. Journal of Social Service Research, 36(3), 188–205.

77.

Tyler

T. R.

, & Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and co-operative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.

78.

US DOJ (2015). Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

79.

van den Bos

, Vermunt

, & Wilke

(1996). The consistency rule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgments and performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 411–428.

80.

Victoria Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (2015). Independent review into sex discrimination and SH, including predatory behavior in Victoria Police, Phase One Report. http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/our-projects-a-initiatives/independent-review-victoria-police

81.

Weijters

M. J.

, Janse

J. H.

, Alkemade

, & Verhoeven

J. T. A.

(2009). Quantifying the effect of catchment land use and water nutrient concentrations on freshwater river and stream biodiversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19(1), 104–112.

82.

Whitman

D. S.

, Caleo

, Carpenter

N. C.

, Horner

M. T.

, & Bernerth

(2012). Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 776–791.

83.

Winters

M. F.

(2014). From diversity to inclusion: An inclusion equation. In Ferdman

B. M.

, and Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 205–228). Jossey-Bass.

84.

Workman-Stark

(2017). Inclusive policing from the inside out. Springer Publishing International.