C. Greer Jordan Department of Organizational Behavior CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
Introductions Presentation – The Study and Model Discussion/Diagnostic Questions – Exploring Applications Wrap-up – Implications, Limitations
gain an understanding of the dynamic social factors that support inclusion in a work organization gain a conceptual understanding of a model to support inclusion diagnosis within an organization gain an understanding of a conception of inclusion as differentiated from diversity
Dr. Diana Bilimoria
Name Organization What has stimulated your interest in this topic/area? How do you define inclusion in an organization important to you?
“How can a diverse 21st century work force be employed as a strategic advantage?” “How can equity, equality and opportunity be created and sustained for all participants in the workforce?”
But what is inclusion?...
Schein, 1967 - the degree to which an employee is considered an “insider” within an organization Pelled, Ledford and Mohrman, 1999 decision-making influence; access to sensitive work information; job security
Mor Barak, 2000 - the extent to which individuals can access information and resources, are involved in work groups, and have the ability to influence decision-making processes. Roberson, 2006 - “ The way that an organization configures its systems and structures to value and leverage the potential, and to limit the disadvantages of differences”
Within organizations with track records of effectiveness and equity, what social processes and or mechanisms appear to produce inclusion?
• Case Study Approach Open to participants’ views of identities important to them o Lead with interest in “what's working”, but also open to factors “not working” o Goal of “theory development”
o
Knowledge intensive science professionals – all PhDs, cooperative cultures, little turnover Site 1 – Research Focused – University Science Department, 16 scientists, 26 total participants Site 2 - Application focused – Teaching and research hospital, 18 scientists and participants Overall demographics: women 41% total participants/ 34% of all scientists, 82% Caucasian/white, 74% U.S. nationals,
Data collection methods – interviews, archival data, observation Analysis - employed a set of analytic strategies: categorization (conceptual coding), memoing, and narrative analysis (case reports, vignettes)
Inclusion of different identities is most successful when a salient aspect of the difference can be linked to salient, shared identities AND organizational needs
The introduction of reduced-schedule scientists in the CTR Department “ He [the chair] has changed things so that I have
been able to compartmentalize my time better….and that has helped a lot….I am able to focus and still have time for my kids.” – senior female scientist
Changes in the overarching, shared identity were achieved by leaders who both personified the shared identity and openly brought a new identity to the organization.
The chair of the Research Department
“She was almost unique in the sense that there was nothing that she thought was beneath her doing. Even though she was the Chairman, you know, if someone had to show slides, or someone had to organize the room, or whatever it was, she was one of the people doing it. And so she, in a sense, made everybody be more communal, because she was.” - senior male scientist
Departments developed cultures that supported inclusion though supportive norms and behaviors.
Research Department
“I think [a scientist] has to be an interactive person to make the group better. …they can’t just sit there in the lab and …never talk to people” –senior female scientist “…[there is] no evidence of of any kind of favoritism, …no obvious prima donas…who if something went ahead that would be good for ½ the department [but not him/herself]…they would not support any funding” - junior male scientist “I think the better the department is, the more cases there are of scientists working together on things that benefit the department and not necessarily an individual scientist exclusively” – senior male scientist
CTR Department
“ It’s an environment that made me realize that people do different things, and the fact that they do different things in different areas doesn’t mean that they are less than me.” – senior male scientist “ I think we agree to, especially for our part-time people, to rally for them…There are people who have left [other departments] because their colleagues did not support them when there were childcare issues or illness. And that just would not be tolerated in this department…” – senior male scientist
“Though it is time away from work…invariably when I announce that we’re doing something like [community service project] …I’ve gotten nothing but 100% support for it!” – senior female scientist
Contextual factors
Identities
Inclusion Dynamics
Intraorganization al Culture
Internal organizational Inclusion
Individuals bring many identities to organizations (Ferdman, 1995) Identities can be organizationally created and or evoked (Ellemers & Rink, 2005) Salient identities drive inclusion dynamics (Dovidio et al, 2005) Main concern - “Prototypicality” attainment & maintenance (Abrams et al, 2005; Jordan & Bilimoria, 2007)
What identities do people bring to your organization? What identities do people openly express or acknowledge? Think of an important, authoritative role in your organization –What abilities, skills, behaviors, values, appearance, temperament etc. does this person who fills this role ideally possess? Do representatives of a particular identity group or social category tend to fit this description?
Shifts/changes in societal level social identities The department’s growth phase Increasing constraints on work and resources encouraged openness to certain differences Surrounding organizations/ professions
Structure : Practices, Policies and Procedures (Cox, 1993) Leadership behavior and action (Schien, 1990) Myths and stories (Schien, 1990) Established activities and decisionmaking processes (Schien, 1990)
What is the culture of your organization? What changes intended to foster an “inclusive culture” have been tried? What have been the outcomes?
Inclusive-Exclusive – Interactions [Moves individuals towards or away from prototypicality within the organizational unit]
Integration Strategies [Pre/Post Interaction – Cognitive approaches to achieving recategorization, socialization ]
Power – Exercise & Response
[Depends on basis of prototypicality (match of integration strategy); informs inclusive-exclusive interactions, patterns become embedded in culture]
Marginal In-group Membership
Prototypical or Full Member
Marginal In-group Membership
Outgroup
Out-group
Derived from Abrams (2005) and Levine (2005)
Sets tone for climate & are a means of exchange of common, strategic & emotional resources Collegial Interactions – respectful, civil, noncompetitive, and or friendly interactions through which common resources are exchanged. Learning Interactions – opportunities to observe, listen, work on tasks with more senior individuals which convey and promote learning of the work and norms. Means of exchange of basic strategic resources. Relational Interactions – taking professional or personal interest in others that leads to providing emotional support (care, encouragement, intellectual enjoyment) and creates professional and or friendship relationships Generative Interactions – overtly interdependent acts of cooperation and professional support through which common and strategic resources are generated and shared.
What interactions move people away from full membership in your organization? What interactions move people towards full membership?
High
Superordinate Identity
Assimilation We
Salience
Pluralistic Integration Us + Them = We
Decategorization Me/You Low
Separation We/They
Low Salience Subordinate Identity
Adapted from: Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Hodson, G., Houlette, M. A., & Johnson, K. M. (2005).
High
What strategies of integration can you identify in our organization? What strategy is dominant? What is the impact?
Adapted from : Turner (2005); Simon and Oakes (2006)
Individual Separation Separation Power through individuals via coercion or face one or two power Individual power based on cornering of resources or structural position Ex. “Chiefdom” Chairs “Traditional Scientists” Integration Power through individuals via persuasion OR Can exercise authority around integrated “We”. Ex. QZ of the Research Department; Parents in the CTR Department Individual Acquiesces to Authority Individual can exercise authority to the extent that they are prototypical of the assimilated “We” Ex. AZ of the Research Department, M18 of the CTR Department Integration Assimilation
Mismatch
Withdrawal from I-E interactions or possible exit Ex. Parents in the Research Department
Organization
Mismatch
Withdrawal from I/E interactions or possible exit Assimilation Ex. “Lone wolf” scientist of the Research Department; Primary researcher in the CTR Department
What has been your integration strategy? What have been the benefits and costs? What power relations do you recognize in your organization? Do certain identities appear to relate to particular forms of power?
Inclusion is a set of social processes that influence an individual’s or subgroup’s access to information and support acquisition of or influence on accepted norms and behaviors access to, exercise of and response to multiple forms of power
What inclusion dynamics may be influencing…
o o
access to information and support acquisition of or influence on accepted norms and behaviors Access to, exercise of and response to power
by diverse individuals in your organization? What impact do you think these dynamics have on important organizational or member outcomes?
o
Culture change is a necessary but not sufficient condition for advancing inclusion Inclusion is fostered by both social processes and structural changes Leadership is essential to inclusion but complicated by shared understandings of the “prevailing” identity(ies) Prevailing identities appear to be a useful starting point for understanding inclusion dynamics.
Structural changes (i.e. change in policy, practices, or formal decision-making process guidelines) are not, in themselves, inclusion. Building the capacity for greater inclusion can begin before difference is introduced in an organization by acknowledging the multiple identities current members hold and supporting C.I. across identities
When coaching individuals, acknowledge and strategize incorporation of marginalized or perceived out-group identities The extent of inclusion is a function of the range of diverse identity groups observed exercising multiple forms of power.
Stereotypes, bias, prejudice are clearly still phenomena experienced by individuals and sub-groups in organizations Focus on knowledge intensive professions – strong professional identities Further research needed making direct links between forms/levels of inclusion and “diversity density”
C. Greer Jordan greer@cwru.edu 216 368-2067 Please sign sheet if you are interested in a copy of this presentation
Cox, T. H. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Ellemers, N. & Rink, F. (2005). Identity and group norms for collaboration and group performance, IN S.R. & E.J. Lawler (Eds), Advances in group processes: Social identification in groups (Vol. 22). New York, N.Y. : Elsevier. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Hodson, G., Houlette, M. A., & Johnson, K. M. (2005). Social inclusion and exclusion: Recategorization and the perception of intergroup boundaries. In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg, J. M. Marques (Ed.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion. New York: Psychology Press. Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229 - 262. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386 – 408. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.) (Vol. 41). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Mor Barak, M. E. (2000). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23(3/4), 47-68. Pelled, L. H., Ledford, G. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1999). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36(7), 1013-1031. Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212-236. Roth, L. M. (2007). Women on Wall Street: Despite diversity measures, Wall Street remains vulnerable to sex discrimination charges. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 24-35. Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. [Review]. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. Simon, B., & Oakes, P. (2006). Beyond dependence: An identity approach to social power and domination. Human Relations, 59(1), 105139. Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 1. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.