Diversity & Inclusion Practices: Insights from Organizations in India.
| Author | Vohra, Neharika |
Introduction
The need for managing various forms of diversity (Roberson, 2019; Scott et al., 2011) to ensure inclusion takes center-stage as organizations become more heterogeneous (Kochan et al., 2003; Roberson, 2019), and legal frameworks for affirmative action and equal employment opportunity gain force (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998; Kravitz, 2008). Most organizations and leaders today agree on the importance of diversity; however, it is the achieving of inclusion that eludes them (Brown, 2018). Denoting differences among people, diversity is based on observable demographic characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity or non-observable aspects such as education and socio-economic position (Kreitz, 2008; Roberson, 2019). Inclusion, on the other hand, signifies how accepted an employee feels in an organization (Pelled et al., 1999) and how much of a voice s/he has in the organization.
When the narrative of diversity is focused only on representational numbers with inadequate attention to the deeper organizational mechanisms at play, inclusion is not achieved (Padavic et al., 2019). Literature on Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) in India, as elsewhere, has remained largely focused on diversity practices (Buddhapriya, 2013; Cooke & Saini, 2012; Haynes & Alagaraja, 2016; IIM Ahmedabad & Biz Divas, 2015) with somewhat limited exploration into inclusion (Vohra & Chari, 2015). There are only a few studies in India on inclusion of people with disabilities (Kulkarni & Gopakumar, 2014; Kulkarni et al., 2016). Limited knowledge on inclusion has led organizations to design inclusion practices and policies based on intuition and trial-and-error (Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013). This study aims to reduce the echoing concerns of the research-practice gap in diversity management (Klarsfeld et al., 2016; Kulik, 2014) by studying the inclusion practices of organizations in India. Epistemologically, this study is framed by a phenomenon-driven orientation which 'focuses on capturing, documenting, and conceptualizing an observed phenomenon of interest in order to facilitate knowledge creation and advancement' (Schwarz & Stensaker, 2016: 245).
At the core of inclusion lies the simultaneous meeting of individuals' needs for belongingness and uniqueness (Shore et al., 2011). Inclusion cannot be achieved through tactical interventions and attention to underlying principles of inclusion, namely reciprocal understanding, standpoint plurality, trust, and integrity, is necessary (Pless & Maak, 2004). Thus, bringing about inclusion is complex and involves changes in the mindsets of people, processes and policies adopted, and systems and structures. In effect, inclusion mandates change in organizational culture. This study was undertaken to address how organizations in India attempt to achieve inclusion. Is the process intentional or emergent? Who leads the change? How is resistance to change addressed? Theoretical perspectives of change management (Kotter, 2007; Shwarz & Stensaker, 2016; Styhre, 2002; van de Ven & Poole, 1995) are drawn upon to frame the understanding of processes of inclusion within organizations.
We structure the paper by first highlighting the need for as well as challenges in studying inclusion and then argue how adopting a change management lens could significantly contribute towards a better understanding of inclusion as a process. The findings outline a process of inclusion that enables minority groups, attends to majority group dynamics, and addresses barriers to inclusion. Evidence of the representational focus of diversity preludes the findings on the process of inclusion. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of our findings while highlighting the limitations of the study.
(Missing) Emphasis on Inclusion
Studies in India have documented the practices and outcomes of diversity management within an organization (eg. Pant & Vijaya, 2015; Panicker et al., 2018; Som, 2010), or across organizations from various industries and sectors (Ali et al., 2011; Cooke & Saini, 2010, 2012; de Jonge, 2014; Haynes & Alagaraja, 2016). However, there is dearth of empirical studies on inclusion in organizations (few exceptions being Donnelly, 2015; Ortlieb & Sieben, 2014; Zanoni & Janssens, 2007).
Considered both a process and a condition inclusion is 'an active process of change or integration, as well an outcome' (Deloitte, 2012: 12). In inclusive organizations, identity group status is unrelated to access to key resources, opportunities exist for individuals to have ties across groups, and acceptance of minority groups is not dependent on their conformity with dominant norms (Davidson & Ferdman, 2001; Nishii, 2012). Organizational support, climate, and culture significantly enhances minority group members' experience of inclusion (Jauhari & Singh, 2013; Tlaiss & Kauser, 2010), thereby influencing their job satisfaction, organizational commitment and advancement (Roldan et al., 2004). While diversity can be achieved through tactical changes, inclusion requires change in attitudes and organizational culture (Donnelly, 2015; Maran & Soro, 2010; Roldan et al., 2004).
Schein (1985) defines organizational culture as shared values and patterns of beliefs and expectations, manifested in actual behavior of people, organizational climate, and material artifacts. In inclusive cultures 'people of all social identity groups have the opportunity to be present, to have their voices heard and appreciated, and to engage in core activities on behalf of the collective' (Wasserman et al., 2008 : 176). In general, organizational cultures are more accepting of certain 'kinds' of employees and behaviors (Ilgen & Youtz, 1986; Maran & Soro, 2010). Therefore, creating inclusive cultures requires a re-look at accepted values (Pless & Maak, 2004) and dismantling of organization's basic assumptions and arbitrary status hierarchies (Bilimoria et al., 2008; Davidson & Ferdman, 2001; Nishii, 2012). Specifically, bringing about an inclusive culture would require attention to fundamental issues involving how people relate to each other, prevailing majority-minority dynamics, structuring of work (Acker, 1990), and deep-rooted biases (Lee, 2005; Ross, 2014; Sabharwal, 2014). Not much has been documented on what it takes to change mindsets of people around inclusion, what processes would best help achieve inclusion, and what structures need to be put in place to bring about changes that will stick (Podsiadlowski & Astrid, 2014).
The challenge of studying inclusion is akin to difficulties in studying any ongoing human process as compared to discrete efforts (Pettigrew et al., 2001). Studying processes help develop the 'know-how' as against the 'know-what' (Langley et al., 2013). Katila and colleagues (2010) and Jones (2016) provide some insights into the 'how' in the context of academia and Science, Technology, Engineering and Management (STEM) respectively. Extant literature on the how of inclusion appears to be influenced by methods to increase diversity and considers bringing about inclusion as planned organizational change that is modeled on the lines of 'grand technocratic projects' (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008). For example, refer to Gurchiek's (2018) six-step model for building an inclusive workplace, Winters' (2014) inclusion equation, and Shore, Cleveland and Sanchez's (2018) model for inclusive organizations. Inclusion in all of the above models is conceived as a change process driven from the top, is intentional, and leads to a defined outcome with little room for iteration and reflexivity. Deterministic and causal models of change (Kotter, 2007) have limited room for accommodating the emergent nature of organizations and cultural change (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008). A process view--which focuses on understanding and explaining 'evolving phenomena' as suggested by Langley and colleagues (2013) may be more befitting to study inclusion.
Focusing on 'how' organizations bring about inclusion, we attempt to tease out mechanisms, processes, and roadblocks to achieving inclusion in organizations. Drawing upon Pless and Maak's (2004) principles of inclusion, diverse perspectives within organizations in India were captured to develop an understanding of the process of inclusion. To understand the inclusion process adopted within organizations in India, we aimed at reaching a broad segment of organizations and collecting contextualized data about their inclusion practices and experiences.
Sample
The sampling frame of this study comprising small, medium and large organizations from both public and private sectors, across a variety of industries including media, telecom, retail, information technology, financial services, research and analytics, pharmaceutical, education, sports, and transport and infrastructure, was first developed. Over 150 organizations that comprised the sampling frame were contacted over email requesting participation in the study. Many declined on grounds of not having done much towards diversity and inclusion (D&I), being compliant with government regulations, or being under other business related pressures. Twenty-one organizations across eight industries agreed to participate and comprised the final sample for this study. These were organizations with ongoing inclusion efforts. Table 1 offers a snapshot of the participating organizations and industry type.
In each organization, an appointment for an interview was first sought from the D&I head or the organization's HR head, along with suggested nominations for one business head and one or more members from the under-represented groups in the organization, to be interviewed separately. In all 21 D&I and HR heads, 20 business heads, and 50 members from various under-represented groups were interviewed as part of this study.
Interviews were mainly semi-structured. Some questions to D&I and HR heads and business heads included when did you start D&I as a focus area? What did you do to...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
