Exploring the Boundaries of Diversity and Inclusion in Human Resource Development

Diversity Research in Management

Given the shared interest in performance (Holton, 2000; Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996) and human capital development (Lepak & Snell, 1999; Watkins, 1989), there has been some overlap between the broader discipline of management and HRD regarding the diversity and inclusion topics explored. For example, the topics of diversity training (e.g., Alhejji et al., 2016; Bezrukova et al., 2012; Kalinoski et al., 2013), diversity among teams and workgroups (e.g., Shemla, Meyer, Greer, & Jehn, 2016; Shore et al., 2011; Yeager & Nafukho, 2012), and diversity education (e.g., Bierema, 2010a; Kulik & Roberson, 2008b) have been examined by both. However, differences concerning research perspectives and the status of the disciplines as disseminators of diversity and inclusion knowledge suggest that a comparison of diversity and inclusion research can offer a view of their unique research boundaries.

A more in-depth look at diversity and inclusion literature reviews authored between 2009 and present in the discipline of management reveals three streams of research which focus on diversity in organizations, team diversity, and inclusion. Research on diversity within organizations has explored how social differences impact global organizations, and the compliance issues typically associated with diversity (McNulty & Hutchings, 2016; Shen, Chanda, D’Netto, & Monga, 2009). For example, Shen et al. (2009) assert that even among worldwide companies, the value of diversity as proffered in diversity management is still underappreciated. Recruitment and selection, training and promotion, performance evaluation, and pay equity for women and minorities are challenges that remain. They also suggest that the value of diversity would be enhanced if managers at the strategic, tactical, and operational levels were involved. The impact of social differences is highlighted by global organizations’ effort to assign and confirm the placement of “non-traditional” expatriates, that is, those with unique family situations like blended families, split families, or lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender partnerships (McNulty & Hutchings, 2016).

Shore et al. (2009) assert that the discipline has been too focused on management and control processes within organizations, and the dimensions of diversity (e.g., age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, culture, and national origin). They suggest that the focus on the dimension of diversity has negatively influenced the outcome and direction of diversity research. Because of their association with the dimensions of diversity, researchers have frequently applied similarity-attraction and relational demography as theoretical frameworks (Riordan, 2000). These paradigms which respectively suggest that people prefer similar individuals, that difference makes some uncomfortable and more likely to treat those similar better, may produce negative predictions (Shore et al., 2009). The discipline needs to adopt more positive research paradigms and explore how diversity might support organizational success by proactively asking subgroups about their ideal work environments and preferences. Proposing a neo-institutional model aligning elements of power, value and norm systems, and shared constructions of social reality, with HR policies and practices, Theodorakopoulos and Budhwar (2015) also examine diversity dimensions. These discussions and findings reflect the subtle movement away from practices and research strictly focused on organizational management approaches as ways of valuing of diversity.

The studies of K. Y. Williams and O’Reilly (1998); van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007); Guillaume, Dawson, Otaye-Ebede, Woods, and West (2017); and van Knippenberg and Mell (2016) reflect the advancement of team diversity research. Respectively, these studies highlight how the social categorization and information/decision-making perspectives, moderating and mediating influences, and “variables moderating the effects of diversity on social integration, performance, and well-being related variables” (Guilluame et al., 2017, p. 277) have moved team diversity forward. These studies create more opportunity for integrative research and analysis of emergent states in teams—the psychological states that arise during team interaction which become shared among team members (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016). Through literature reviews focused on team composition, Shemla et al. (2016) investigated perceived differences among team members and Roberge and van Dick (2010) explored when and how diversity impacts performance.

Finally, an isolated focus on inclusion in organizations and among work groups was another topic examined through literature review. Shore et al. (2011) construct a framework and definition for inclusion by applying optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991). The authors use this framework to support their review of inclusion and diversity literature, and conclude with the suggestion that future inclusion research should explore the concepts of both uniqueness and belongingness. Shore, Cleveland, and Sanchez’s (2018) literature review identifies the inclusion constructs explored in the discipline (i.e., workgroup inclusion, leader inclusion, perceived organizational inclusion, organizational practices inclusion, and inclusion climate) and offers a model of an inclusive organization. Their model suggests that commitment at the top management levels should lead toward practices, processes, and policies that promote inclusion and discourage exclusion. An organization’s prevention and promotion orientations should improve perceptions of inclusion, retention, and acquisition of talent, and the overall inclusive climate.

These research streams indicate the continuing link between human resource management policies and difference-focused practices as drivers for diversity and inclusion research. Moreover, a survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM; 2010) reports that recruitment and retention are the primary measurements of diversity program success for 49% of the respondents (as cited in Scott et al., 2011). However, even though the impetus of these studies suggests that management still primarily sees diversity and inclusion from a human capital perspective (Cox & Blake, 1991; Robinson & Dechant, 1997), the conclusion suggests that management is also attempting to explore the social value of diversity.

Furthermore, two other observations stand out for this author. First, even though the research conclusions call for more interdisciplinary approaches, and the creation of inclusive cultures (Scott et al., 2011; Theodorakopoulos & Budhwar, 2015), as Shore et al. (2009) state, the theoretical research paradigms are still negatively oriented. Second, management’s status as a larger and more established discipline has allowed for deep and extensive exploration of the topics mentioned. The authors of the literature reviews discussed here were able to gather and analyze a plethora of studies within their discipline related to their respective topics. They also had the benefit of observing how their research has tracked with the historical events and corresponding ideologies of diversity (Nkomo & Hoobler, 2014). Admittedly, in comparison to HRD, management enjoys a richer and more profound research legacy as it relates to diversity and inclusion.

HRD’s Role in Diversity and Inclusion Research

However, several factors suggest that HRD has an essential and distinct role in establishing diversity and inclusion research and practice. At its core, HRD prepares individuals, groups, and organizations for learning and change, and relies on theoretical frameworks to orient and inform research and practice (Chalofsky, Rocco, & Morris, 2014; Swanson & Holton, 2009). The frameworks which guide performance improvement, pedagogical approaches, and evaluation reflect strategic importance (Yorks, 2005). With specific regard to diversity, HRD explores how aspects of diversity impact career development and work experiences, for example, age and sexual orientation (McFadden, 2015; Thijssen, Knies, & Leisink, 2014). HRD can move beyond a business case perspective, and beyond a corporate organizational context, toward the perspective of learning and social justice, and include broader organizational settings for research (Alhejji et al., 2016; Byrd, 2014a). HRD is already interdisciplinary and focused on positive research paradigms which transcend differences and seeks the experience of individuals and groups outside of the confines of organizational effectiveness and efficiency (Alhejji et al., 2016; Kasl & Yorks, 2016; J. Williams & Mavin, 2014). It applies a critical perspective, whereby diversity’s attributes, antecedents, and consequences may be explored (Sambrook, 2014). For example, Rocco, Bernier, and Bowman (2014) acknowledges the impact of racism, sexism, and discrimination has on organizations and advances critical race theory (CRT) as an approach for analyzing power structures. Ahead of management, HRD is also already moving toward embracing intersectionality as a lens for examining the experience of oppression among marginalized groups (Byrd, 2014a). This move is not to say that management has not ventured into this area, but to point out that HRD is already here.

HRD is well positioned to explore the contemporary theories, pedagogy, and applications of diversity and inclusion. Furthermore, a focus on these three areas facilitates the examination of emergent boundaries of diversity and inclusion in HRD literature. This review seeks to answer three specific questions about the topic (Torraco, 2016): (a) What theories support contemporary empirical studies and conceptual research in HRD? (b) What methods of teaching support the learning of diversity and inclusion topics among individuals, organizations, and in the academy? and (c) Who are the individuals or organizations currently benefiting from the exploration of diversity and inclusion study in the academy? This review also critically analyzes the literature related to these questions and suggests ways to move forward through research and practice. For this review, the author sees diversity as “the varied perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups bring” (D. A. Thomas & Ely, 1996, p. 2). Inclusion is “the degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the workgroup through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness” (Shore et al., 2011, p. 1265).

Diversity and Inclusion Theories

HRD solves problems through theoretical frameworks (Swanson & Holton, 2009). Diversity and inclusion problems explored in the HRD literature since 2010 have utilized a few core theories as means for analysis and intervention development. From a macro perspective, the grand theories of social identity theory, critical theory, and behavioral theory, respectively, explain how people perceive themselves as members of a group in a social context (Ellemers & Haslam, 2012; Reicher, Spears, & Haslam, 2010), how dominant ideologies are normalized and influence society and culture, and how knowledge and skills are garnered through interaction with one’s environment (Reio & Batista, 2014). From a micro perspective, HRD frames the analysis of identities, dominant ideologies, and learning environments to develop models of pedagogy. The emergent models and interventions address strategic and critical diversity and inclusion issues at the individual, group, and organizational levels. The discussion of diversity and inclusion theories in this review reflects the more recent frameworks used to analyze and address contemporary diversity and inclusion issues.

Within the domain of social cognitive psychology, social identity theory and categorization theory suggest that an awareness of identity places one into a social context created through race, gender, sexuality, class, religion, disability, and age (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Byrd, 2014b; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and categorizes individuals within similar (in-group) or dissimilar (out-group) subgroups. As a lens for diversity and inclusion, these theories offer ways to view restriction and access. They also provide a perspective on how identity can facilitate or hinder the process of appreciating diversity (K. M. Thomas et al., 2010). Acknowledging the intersectionality of identity, that is, the way social identities converge (Crenshaw, 1989), helps to clarify the experience of those who self-perceive or are socially perceived as members of multiple identity groups (L. A. Bell, Goodman, & Ouellett, 2016; Byrd, 2014b). Forms of social oppression are exposed, and issues of social justice are made apparent. HRD can leverage intersectionality in organizations by creating statements inclusive of multiple social identities, and developing broader and deeper diversity initiatives (Byrd, 2014b). As the assumption of personal recognition of one’s status as a member of an “in group” or “out group” can have an impact on performance, HRD can challenge and change human resource functions which perpetuate simplistic views of social identity. It can also counter negative aspects of human resource functions like Talent Management which may perpetuate inequalities and stifle diversity (Sheehan & Anderson, 2015).

Critical theory facilitates analysis of “social systems, organizational policies and practices, and research approaches that silence new, different, alternative and creative paradigms of understanding” (Gedro, Collins, & Rocco, 2014, p. 531). Critical analysis also opposes the frameworks reinforcing homogeneity. For example, CRT, feminist theory, and queer theory support contemporary discussions of diversity and inclusion issues in the workplace and beyond. Considering the potential impact of CRT in the workplace and classroom, CRT illuminates the pervasiveness of racism and exposes interest convergence (Rocco et al., 2014), the notion that majority groups will support minority advancement only when they are the beneficiaries. CRT draws attention to race as a manipulated social construct and disputes a relativity perspective of race: a view where the experience of racism is similar in degree and impact. Examining issues of diversity and inclusion through the lens of feminist and queer theory “would do the difficult work of identifying underlying norms within organizational structures that reproduce gendered divisions that privilege men” (Gedro & Mizzi, 2014, p. 449) and challenge hetero-dominant binary categories such as lesbian/straight/gay (Gedro & Mizzi, 2014). The rejection of “natural” and static categories influences selection for experiential assignment, mentoring, and career development programs. It produces “non-normative thinking and practicing in educational settings” (p. 452), and explains the difficulty of remaining value-free and socially equitable (Gedro & Mizzi, 2014).

As a behavioral theory applied to support the increase of diversity through inpatriation (i.e., selection and placement of managers into an organization’s headquarters), Harvey et al. (2011) suggest that social learning theory allows foreign managers to identify and adapt to cultural differences. International managers participate in predeparture and post-arrival training and are immersed in the domestic organization’s culture. Participants learn about a home country and host country cultural differences and receive multidimensional skills and language training. The training follows Vroom’s levels of need. The manager works through four stages: (a) Survival—where they work through fears and anxieties associated with working in a foreign environment; (b) Assimilation—the adoption of organizational culture with the assistance of others; (c) Acculturation—where modification of cultures takes place; and (d) Pluralistic Integration—where values, social interests, and interpersonal relationships are developed with the acknowledgment of different indigenous ethnic and religious backgrounds. Expected outcomes include more effective and efficient delivery of service, decreased uncertainty on the part of the manager, and increased employee satisfaction and organizational performance.

As frameworks supporting conceptual discussions and empirical studies, social identity theory, critical theory, and behavioral theory frame the most recent discussions of diversity and inclusion topics. They explain group access and exclusion, power dynamics and social systems, and individual behaviors adapted to respond to diverse cultures. In an age where virtual workplaces, diverse teams, and group work have become standard practice, these theories heighten awareness of individual, structural, and cultural differences. However, concerning research contexts, the limited number of empirical studies exploring the application of the theories, suggests that more can be learned about the settings in which these dynamics take place, and their role in diversity education, diversity management, and training.

Teaching Diversity and Inclusion

The pedagogical challenges associated with designing instruction to promote learning and appreciation of diversity and inclusion are further impacted by globalization, changing social contexts, and trepidation on the part of individuals and organizations (Bierema, 2010b; Burkhardt & Bennett, 2015). In the HRD academy and the professional workplace, anxiety about who should teach? What exactly should be taught? and To what end? (S. T. Bell, Towler, & Fisher, 2011; Hite & McDonald, 2010) impedes the progress that could be made in academic and professional curriculum development. The emotions associated with the teaching diversity and inclusion rise through perceptions of race, gender, sexuality, gender identity, age, and personality (Kasl & Yorks, 2016). However, the recent inquiry of contemporary pedagogical concepts reveal approaches which help individuals, organizations, and the academy to move forward.

As a matter of conscious and expedience, the dignity of individuals who have intersecting social and cultural backgrounds must be maintained if learning and appreciation are to take place. The following approaches are forms of action research that challenge the dominant models of heritage (Clarke & Lewis, 2016), and counter unconscious resistance to diversity and inclusion measures as evidenced through incivility (Githens, 2011). These forms also create an empathic space through which students may acknowledge individual experiences associated with diversity and inclusion (Kasl & Yorks, 2016). The first approach encourages the development and preservation of authentic features of heritage (history, traditions, and cultural images) by adopting a Black feminist framework to examine Eurocentric-based perceptions of others’ heritage. Women at different socioeconomic levels used digital technology to construct and preserve authentic expressions of their heritage (Clarke & Lewis, 2016). The second approach suggests that incivility is addressed through action-oriented diversity education programs. In this approach, teams interact with universal social justice principles and broader conceptions of diversity (Githens, 2011). Githens (2011) also suggests integrating the above with behavioral training to address anger resulting from misperceptions, and preventive skill building to help one understand how subconscious and suppressed feelings may emerge. Finally, the creation of empathic space bypasses cognitive resistance to someone else’s experience through presentational knowing (Heron, 1992), that is, the way of knowing through types of art, metaphors, stories, and images (Kasl & Yorks, 2016). Awareness, reflection, and analysis of art, metaphors, stories, and images facilitate “whole-person knowing” (Kasl & Yorks, 2016, p. 6; Yorks & Kasl, 2002) where an empathic connection is made. The implication is that the resistant responses to diversity and inclusion are mitigated through the creation of empathic space. In an example presented by Kasl and Yorks (2016), 19 doctoral students utilized presentational knowing to develop cross-racial empathy. Two groups using poetry and music (identified as the Black team) and movement and visual art (identified as the White team) developed a deeper understanding of the other racial group’s emotions, actions, and thought processes.

While the previous three approaches focused on participant experience, the following method takes an organizational learning perspective. The concept of triple loop learning is applied to traditional paradigms of diversity management (Kwon & Nicolaides, 2017). Tracking with the diversity management paradigms of discrimination and fairness, access and legitimacy, learning and effectiveness (D. A. Thomas & Ely, 1996), single-loop learning and double-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1974), respectively, reflect a coordinating but not necessarily linear progression toward triple-loop learning in the learning and effectiveness domain. For example, in the context of diversity management single-loop learning means merely changing behavior to address inequalities in the workplace. Double-loop learning means transforming the organization’s behavioral approach and perception of value-related diversity. Questions of access and legitimacy are analyzed with a broader and deeper understanding of diversity; simultaneous reflection and action allow diversity to become an “existential dimension” of one’s self (Kwon & Nicolaides, 2017, p. 93). In this case, the authentic appreciation of diversity drives decision making rather than mere compliance. Kwon and Nicolaides (2017) also suggest that diversity becomes source of continuous learning through Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry (CDAI), where employees access and share their own experiences associated with differences, collectively reflect on assumptions, values, and beliefs, and develop new cognitive structures (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005; Foster, 2012; Kwon & Nicolaides, 2017).

Action-oriented approaches from the perspectives of student experience with diversity and inclusion issues seem to be preferred. Through these approaches, participants can explore and share personal experiences and clarify matters which impact their agency, dignity, and ability to shape their own heritage (Clarke & Lewis, 2016). Critical theory and social learning theory are at the core of these approaches and substantially support the exploration of social justice issues. Bierema (2010a) suggested diversity education should promote knowledge of other social and cultural groups (Day & Glick, 2000), reflexivity (Brookfield, 1995, 1987), interpersonal skills, and social action (Banks, 1993). She also suggested feminist pedagogy can frame how diversity issues are taught. However, what seems to be a glaring weakness are the absence of literature and application of these approaches in the workplace. These approaches have the potential to impact group processes and performance (Qin, Smyrnios, & Deng, 2012), but two questions bear asking are as follows: Why haven’t these approaches been studied in organizational settings? and Is HRD preparing future professionals to apply them?

Foci of HRD Research

Since 2010, diversity and inclusion application and research has centered on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community (Collins, 2012; Gedro, 2010; Schmidt & Githens, 2010; Schmidt et al., 2012) and those with disabilities (Nafukho et al., 2010). A conceptual exploration of diversity outcomes in higher education and organizations and country-specific diversity implications has also drawn interest. These advances reflect the shifting conceptualizations of diversity in social, academic, corporate, and international contexts (Qin et al., 2014).

The focus on specific marginalized communities indicates an academy-wide emphasis on improving the awareness of issues impacting the LGBT community and people with disabilities (Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2010; Collins, 2012; Nafukho et al., 2010; Schmidt et al., 2012). Subject to critical HRD discussions and analysis, exploration of these issues have led academicians and practitioners to reflect on power structures, question assumptions, and learn to build more inclusive environments. By taking a historical view of the practices and presumptions which reinforce LGBT discrimination in the workplace, and by reviewing national and international laws and legislative omissions, the structures which promote discrimination in the workplace can be exposed (Gedro, 2010). A critical perspective also provides a foundation for redefining important concepts like leadership. For example, Collins (2012) uses Bishop’s (2002) ally development framework to define leadership as

the opportunity and privilege to facilitate collaboration between diverse individuals for the purpose of developing an inclusive environment that encourages valuable networks of interaction among leaders and followers progressing toward a broad set of flexible objectives that have been defined and agreed upon by the collective group. (Collins, 2012, p. 373)

In addition, understanding the forms of disability allows managers, employees, and coworkers the opportunity to identify previously unknown issues, support performance, and integrate experiences (Nafukho et al., 2010).