Igboanugo BuildingFrameworkInclusive 2022

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, and Inclusion (IJIDI)
Building a Framework for an Inclusive Workplace Culture

Author(s): Somkene Igboanugo, Jieru Yang and Phil Bigelow
Source: The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion , FALL 2022, Vol.
6, No. 3 (FALL 2022), pp. 52-67
Published by: The International Journal of Information, Diversity, and Inclusion (IJIDI)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48700868
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The International Journal of Information, Diversity, and Inclusion (IJIDI) is collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The International Journal of Information,
Diversity, & Inclusion
This content downloaded from

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Building a Framework for an Inclusive Workplace Culture:
The Diversio Diversity and Inclusion Survey
Somkene Igboanugo, University of Waterloo, Canada
Jieru Yang, University of Western Ontario - Ivey Business School, Canada
Phil Bigelow, University of Waterloo, Canada
Abstract
Reliable and valid methods are imperative to assess any organization’s diversity and inclusion practices.
Therefore, the Diversio Diversity and Inclusion Survey (DDIS), an instrument built on a framework of five
core themes (inclusive culture, fair management, access to networks, flexible working conditions, and
safe working environment), and designed to measure inclusion metrics for organizations, was tested to
examine its psychometric properties. The DDIS was developed through a collaboration of industry
experts, including those with the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business (CCAB) and the LGBTQ
Chamber of Commerce. Initial testing and focus groups with over 60 participants belonging to equity-
deserving groups ensured the instrument had good content validity. After the initial testing, pilot testing
involving a diverse sample of working adults from 25 companies in Canada, the U.S., and the United
Kingdom was completed. Psychometric properties of the 5-item DDIS scale were examined based on a
cross-sectional survey of 8,800 working adults from various industries worldwide. The internal
consistency reliability of the scale was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient1. The Cronbach alpha
was 0.840 with all item-total correlations greater than 0.5. Therefore, the DDIS, which has good content
validity and good internal consistency, should prove helpful in conducting assessments of diversity and
inclusion culture and practices at any organization. In addition, organizations can survey their employees
to gather relevant information to drive policy and organizational change.
Keywords: diversity, inclusion, scale development, survey, workplace culture
Publication Type: research
Introduction
C
urrently, organisations are witnessing an upward trend of diversity among their workforce,
prompting changes in management practices, organisational values, and priorities
(Boekhorst, 2015). Movements associated with the growing diversification of the workforce include
globalisation, flattened corporate hierarchies, technological innovation, high immigration rates, and
increased participation of minority groups (e.g., women, ethnic/racial minorities, LGBTQ groups, and
persons with disabilities) (Downey et al., 2015; Fassinger, 2008; Mor-Barak & Levin, 2002;
Shore et al., 2018). A diverse workforce is instrumental in elevating an organisation’s performance and
competitive edge; hence, the need for creating a thriving environment is imperative and has prompted
the adoption of diversity management. Recently, there has been a shift in discourse from diversity to
inclusion, to creating an inclusive climate to harness the potential of a diversified staff fully and to
reaping the accompanying benefits (Klarsfeld et al., 2012; Nair & Vohra, 2015).
With increased attention to diversity and inclusion (D&I) in the workplace, there is a need to appreciate
the contextual meaning of these concepts. Often, diversity and inclusion are used interchangeably;
although interrelated, they are conceptually different constructs. Workplace diversity has been defined
as “the set of individual, group, and cultural differences people bring to the organisation”
(Prasad et al., 2006). The set of differences includes variability in the demographic composition of a
The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

ISSN 2574-3430, https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/ijidi
DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
Building a Framework for an Inclusive Workplace Culture 53
workgroup such as differences in race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, and the different
group of values individuals bring to the organisation, for example, work culture, cognitive and behavioral
styles (Konrad, 2006; Prasad et al., 2006). For practical reasons, the endgame for most organisations is
to achieve demographic and thought diversity (Nair & Vohra, 2015).
On the other hand, Shore et al. (2011) define inclusion as “the degree to which an employee perceives
that they are an esteemed member of the workgroup through experiencing treatment that satisfies their
need for belongingness and uniqueness” (p. 1265). In the workplace context, “inclusion” represents an
individual’s ability to access information/resources, actively participate in decision-making processes,
and contribute fully to an organisation (Roberson, 2006). Looking at both concepts, as Shore et al. (2018)
elucidate, diversity highlights differences in the demographic composition and values in groups or
organisations, while inclusion prioritises greater involvement and participation of all members of an
organisation to leverage diversity effects/benefits.
Irrespective of industry, a diverse and inclusive culture in the workplace provides immense benefits.
The Mor-Barak et al. (2016) meta-analysis focusing on diversity and inclusion in the workplace concludes
that leadership effort at advancing inclusion and diversity was significantly associated with only positive
outcomes, compared to when diversity alone was the focus (resulting in positive and negative
consequences). The Mor-Barak et al. (2016) study highlights the importance of promoting both concepts
at the individual and organisational levels. When organisations prioritise D&I, compelling evidence shows
that marginalised and non-dominant groups (e.g., women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ individuals, people
with disabilities) benefit immensely. Increased job satisfaction, prospects for growth/advancement,
commitment, and better overall physical and mental health are associated with increased diversity and
inclusion (Bond & Haynes, 2014). In addition, policies that promote diversity and inclusive practices at
the organisational level produce higher competitive advantage, increased productivity, attraction and
retention of the best talents, employee satisfaction and loyalty, and better business performance and
practices (Bond & Haynes, 2014; McCuiston et al., 2004).
With the increased awareness and growing importance of D&I, it is crucial to identify workplace factors
affecting their acceptance and implementation. Often these factors are specific to certain environments
(i.e., type of industry, geographical location), making it essential to identify them with that context in
mind (Konrad, 2006). Industry experts and researchers investigating D&I at the workplace suggest that
these factors may be emerging primarily from organisational culture, hiring processes, available
resources, remuneration, communication methods, and leadership/management style (Boekhorst, 2015;
Bond & Haynes, 2014; Buttner & Lowe, 2017; Konrad, 2006; Kossek et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2017).
These factors may promote, or hinder D&I practices in the workplace, thus, amplifying the need for
identification and measurement. Therefore, there is a need for a standardised and validated assessment
tool that identifies and measures the degree to which varying perceived factors may promote D&I
practices or undermine its integration in the workplace. With such an assessment measure, organisations
can effectively address workplace barriers to diversity and disburse resources to boost inclusion
practices.
Considering the need for a validated tool that identifies workplace factors and their impact on D&I, an
assessment tool, the DDIS, was developed by Diversio Inc., a company of subject matter experts that
measure, track, and improve diversity, equity, and inclusion at organisations using artificial intelligence
technology and sophisticated data analysis. The DDIS is an instrument that assesses the degree of
diversity and how individuals feel engaged and included in the affairs of an organisation or workplace.
A consortium of subject experts, equity-seeking-group associations, academics, and senior executives of
different industries were also instrumental in developing the DDIS. The DDIS was designed to reflect the
current research and advancement on D&I applicable to various organisations.
In this study, we provide elucidation for the five themes that the theoretical framework for the DIS is
built around and test the measure’s psychometric properties, focusing on its reliability. The paper
consists of two sections; the first expands on the five core themes that undergird the DDIS. The second
investigates its reliability: the internal consistency of items on the DDIS.

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
Conceptual Framework for the Diversio Diversity and Inclusion Survey
Recently, there has been much discussion surrounding D&I in literature, and researchers have identified
several themes associated with diversity and inclusion in the workplace. The authors of the DDIS built
the survey on a framework based on knowledge of best practices, a review of the current literature on
diversity and inclusion, and the internal Diversio Inc’s research data from 20,000 companies worldwide.
The authors identified five core themes: inclusive culture, fair management, access to networks, flexible
working conditions, and a safe working environment.
Inclusive Culture
Based on the Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT), two broad themes conceptualise inclusion in the
workplace (Shore et al., 2011). The first theme, belongingness, represents acceptance for all employees,
regardless of status, position, or demographic group. At the same time, uniqueness welcomes and
respects the contribution and perspectives of all employees, irrespective of cultural differences
(Shore et al., 2011). Building on these themes, inclusive culture involves adopting the principles,
practices, and policies that foster a sense of belongingness and uniqueness in an organisation
(Boekhorst, 2015). Nishii (2013) further expands on inclusive culture, where individuals are treated fairly,
valued, and participate in decision-making processes irrespective of background.
Further, inclusive culture at the workplace addresses assimilation (conforming to the dominant culture),
which hinders perceived belongingness among marginalised individuals, especially racial minorities.
Assimilation requires surrendering one’s traditions and views in favor of those exhibited by the dominant
group in return for acceptance (Bond & Haynes, 2014; Fields, 2009; Yang & Konrad, 2011). In addition,
organisations with an active, inclusive culture intentionally eschew issues such as tokenism, color-
blindness, and other subtle exclusionary acts (Bernstein et al., 2020; Fields, 2009; Prasad et al., 2006).
In the workplace, leadership plays a significant role in creating a culture of inclusivity (Gill et al., 2018).
Mor-Barak et al. (2016) define an inclusive leader as one who looks beyond individual differences
(e.g., race and sexuality) but values unique talents and leverages different perspectives diverse
individuals bring to the table. Other complementing factors to cultivating an inclusive culture at the
workplace include increased employee engagement, empathy practice, provision of adequate resources,
and team building (Boekhorst, 2015; Mor-Barak & Levin, 2002; Shore et al., 2018). Team building in this
context encompasses all activity that fosters unity, inclusion, collaboration, and communication between
a diverse group of individuals.
Inclusive culture forms the bedrock for adopting and applying D&I policies and practices. The importance
of an inclusive culture at any organisation includes growing benefits of better team rapport, improved
team performance, enhanced employee well-being, increased job commitment, and an established
positive climate for diversity (Shore et al., 2018).
Fair Management
Feedback and reviews are critical day-to-day activities in any organisation. Organisational leadership
uses feedback and reviews to evaluate and praise positive performance, or in other cases, constructively
criticise erring behavior or performances, which in the long run tracks team members’ progress and
professional development. When used appropriately, feedback and reviews are valuable at individual and
management levels. It provides a transparent apparatus to appraise staff performance and target areas
for growth and development.
In the context of diversity and inclusion, the feedback and review process is a valuable performance-
enhancing activity when implemented fairly and transparently. Unfortunately, certain groups often
receive negative and unflattering feedback, with data showing that existing performance review systems
are biased against non-dominant group employees (Konrad, 2006). Further, women are often
shortchanged by these reviews, with data showing that women are 1.4 times more likely to receive

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
negative critical feedback (Cecchi-Dimeglio, 2017). Biased management, in combination with dishonest
and vital feedback and reviews, leads to low morale, little or no commitment, job dissatisfaction, low
self-efficacy, poor retention, and high turnover of employees (Chandler, 2012; Saunderson, 2004).
Biased management may also lead to harmful practices such as nepotism, favoritism, and cronyism in
the workplace (Arasli & Tumer, 2008; Padgett & Morris, 2005). Individuals traditionally privileged by
workplace systems (white, heterosexual, male, and non-disabled) often benefit from positive feedback,
giving them opportunities for career advancement at the expense of others (Konrad, 2006). Nepotism
may propagate homogeneity, introduce subtle and overt discrimination, and influence recruitment
practices that hinder diversity and inclusion building (Jones et al., 2007; Konrad, 2006). In addition,
biased performance evaluations and feedback lead to inequitable pay distribution, especially for women
and ethnic minorities (Buttner & Lowe, 2017; Fassinger, 2008). According to data from Statistics Canada,
full-time working women made an average of 87 cents to every dollar earned by men
(Pelletier et al., 2019). This disparity was wider for Indigenous, racialised, those living with disabilities,
and immigrant women (Pelletier et al., 2019; M. Williams, 2018). Further, Mor-Barak & Levin’s (2002)
findings show that women are more likely to receive critical reviews, receive less recognition and earn
less despite similar performance levels as their male counterparts.
Management practices that provide unbiased feedback and reviews are necessary to improve the D&I
culture in the workplace. It ensures transparency and equal access to opportunities, breaks the proverbial
“glass ceiling” for under-represented groups, fosters growth/productivity, improves team morale,
increases talent retention, and improves organisational diversity (Bond & Haynes, 2014; Schmidt et al.,
2017).
Access to Networks
Access to networks is a critical component of D&I culture at the workplace. Access refers to the
availability of opportunities and equitable access to opportunities, regardless of individual ability or
experience (Tan, 2019). Access to networks provides opportunities for active participation and
engagement for marginalised groups and eliminates perceived or actual obstacles that stifle career
growth/advancement (Tan, 2019). In the D&I context, network access appraises how employees feel they
have management’s support and investment in their growth and development. Employees with access
are provided opportunities to showcase their talents and develop within their organisation. Notably,
room for career growth/development, mentorship, training programs, and networking opportunities are
essential facets of network access.
Increased opportunities for career development are evidential benefits of increased access to the
workplace, especially for marginalised groups. Unfortunately, systemic barriers often targeting
marginalised groups are the “glass ceiling” and “sticky floor” phenomenon. Glass ceiling is a term used
to describe systemic barriers that women and racialised groups experience while attempting to rise
through organisational ranks (Bond & Haynes, 2014). The sticky floor phenomenon explains the uneven
clustering of specific individuals in low-paying or entry-level positions with limited opportunities for
upward mobility (Bond & Haynes, 2014; Harlan & Berheide, 1994). In addition, existing evidence shows
that women, racial minorities, and individuals living with disabilities make up a large proportion of
employees in human resources, home health, administrative services jobs, and frontline roles.
The over-representation in such frontline positions furthers career inequality and limits access to
networks and opportunities compared to white men (Bond & Haynes, 2014; Kossek et al., 2017).
Training, networking, and mentorship are essential components of access to networks. Training provides
education on self-awareness, self-reflection, and reduction of bias and perceptions that concern the
provision of access to marginalised groups (Gill et al., 2018). Mentorship is of particular interest since it
guides an often complicated and tumultuous career path in big organisations, especially for racial
minorities (Fredette et al., 2016; Konrad, 2006). Unfortunately, recent evidence indicates an unequal
availability/access to support networks and mentors (Fassinger, 2008). By their demographic similarity
to the leadership/administrative team, specific individuals find it easier to connect and access mentors

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
than individuals who do not share such demographic similarities (Davis et al., 2016; Konrad, 2006).
In other cases, mentees belonging to non-dominant groups may experience difficulties establishing
enriching relationships with mentors, especially from different demographics, with outcomes often to
the mentee’s detriment (Konrad, 2006).
Access to networks is vital in fostering an inclusive climate at the workplace. In organisations with
equitable access to resources and opportunities, there is a significant increase in team integration,
knowledge sharing, learning, networking, and career advancement (Bond & Haynes, 2014; Podsiadlowski
et al., 2013). In addition, organisations that guarantee access to networks establish a stable work
environment that retains a diverse and talented pool of staff (Konrad, 2006; Podsiadlowski et al., 2013).
Flexible Working Conditions

Organizations have often sought ways to improve the working conditions of their staff to enhance job
performance and overall productivity. As a result, flexible working conditions have grown in popularity
because of increased calls for work-life balance, rising work-related stress, and the rallying cry for a
diversified and inclusive workplace (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has
contributed to significant demand for flexible working options (Forbes et al., 2020). Flexible work
encompasses all working conditions, including reduced hours, remote work, time off, compressed
working time, and atypical working hours (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010).
Remote work has been the subject of much research since it is a necessary form of flexible work. Despite
the benefits associated with remote work (e.g., work-life balance), certain employees do not have the
option of working remotely and face increased difficulties (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). Marginalised
groups do not always enjoy the luxury of working remotely due to systemic barriers placed on them by
the nature of their jobs, which are mostly frontline, non-salaried, and low-status (Abril, 2020; Brown,
2018; Konrad, 2006). The lack of choices marginalised groups, especially women, experience is evident
in disrupted work-life balance, slower upward mobility, and high attrition rates (Kossek et al., 2017).
Access to parental leave is an essential feature of an inclusive culture and flexible working environment.
Due to increasing numbers of women in the workplace, discussions regarding parental leave have gained
traction. However, certain employees may not have opportunities to access paid parental leave or are
forced to return to work prematurely. Additionally, prejudicial stereotypes and bias, especially towards
women (e.g., maternal wall, a form of discrimination faced by pregnant women or working mothers in
which they are perceived as less competent or committed to their jobs by colleagues and the
organisation) (Williams & Multhaup, 2018), play a role in limiting opportunities for parental leave, leaving
the affected parties with tough career decisions, and added stress (Kossek et al., 2017). Research has
identified significant evidence of mental strain in employees with no access to flexible working policies
with provisions for parental leave (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Williams & Multhaup, 2018).
Flexible work conditions are particularly crucial for ensuring workers’ health and well-being. The benefits
of flexible work are evident at both the employee and organisation levels. At the employee level, flexible
work is significantly linked to positive outcomes such as higher job satisfaction, autonomy, low-stress
levels, and work-life enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). For parents,
these benefits are more pronounced, as it provides the flexibility to maintain a healthy work-family
balance. At the organisational level, employers report increased overall productivity,
attraction/retainment of talent, low absenteeism, and higher employer loyalty and commitment when
employees receive a range of flexible work options (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Konrad & Mangel, 2000).
Safe Working Environment

Safe working conditions include all policies, and ethical and behavioral standards put in place to ensure
the safety of all employees. An increasingly diverse workforce and the growing call for inclusivity have
necessitated workplace designs that prioritise psychological safety and safe working conditions
(Adams et al., 2020; Downey et al., 2015). Psychological safety in the D&I context is the intentional

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
establishment of healthy and consistent social systems that allow individuals full expression and
engagement in a safe environment (Kahn, 1990). Unfortunately, despite the growing awareness and need
for safe working conditions, marginalised groups are often at the receiving end of unsafe working
conditions and experience adverse employment outcomes and negative impacts on their health and
wellness (Butler-Henderson et al., 2018; Magalhaes et al., 2010).
Inclusive leadership is crucial in any organisation because leaders are responsible for creating a safe
working environment for subordinates through transparent, respectful, and accessible personalities
(Adams et al., 2020). On the other hand, toxic leaders rely on a culture of fear, bullying, disrespect, and
aggression towards their subordinates. In doing so, they deliberately create unsafe and hostile conditions
for employees, further jeopardising an organisation’s goal of inclusion (Singh et al., 2018).
Workplace discrimination is another factor contributing to unsafe working conditions (Adams et al., 2020;
Bond & Haynes, 2014; Mor-Barak & Levin, 2002). Discrimination at the workplace may present as
restricted or limited access to opportunities, unfair feedback/evaluation, and inequitable distribution of
rewards (Adams et al., 2020). In other instances, discrimination can be interpersonal and appears as
verbal harassment, incivility, and bullying (Adams et al., 2020; Raver & Nishii, 2010). Harassment is also
tied to discrimination or may appear on its own and manifest in sexual, verbal, and physical forms
(Adams et el., 2020). Typically, there is no access to recourse in unsafe working conditions, and the
systems suppress complaints and punish attempts to seek justice (Adams et al., 2020; Raver & Nishii,
2010).
Regardless of its presentation (subtle or overt), the impact of unsafe working conditions is telling,
particularly on individuals belonging to marginalised groups. Evidence shows that marginalised groups
overwhelmingly experience employment and sex-based discrimination, including discriminatory
recruitment practices, unfavorable job evaluations, wage disparity, bullying, and sexual harassment
(Adams et al., 2020; Bond & Haynes, 2014; Konrad, 2006). Toxic leadership and discrimination also hinder
complete assimilation and diminish marginalised staff’s self-efficacy and confidence, resulting in physical
and mental strain (Adams et al., 2020; Schmitt et al., 2014).
Creating a safe working environment is a vital ingredient for maintaining a thriving workplace and
ensuring the overall well-being of all workers, especially members of the non-dominant group. In
addition, safe working conditions strengthen workplace diversity and facilitate seamless integration of
inclusive practices that ensure employee commitment and participation.
The five themes discussed are essential components of a theoretical framework elucidating a diverse and
inclusive workplace. As observed in the literature and identified among qualitative responses in past
surveys (free-text data from the DDIS), the core themes may roughly be grouped into sub-themes that
provide further contextual meaning. Figure 1 provides a detailed representation of the framework used
to design the DDIS.
Methods
Development of the Diversio Diversity and Inclusion Survey – Psychometric Properties

The survey was developed to assess perceptions of D&I of working adults in various industries around the
globe, especially within North America. Based on internal data and literature sources on D&I, a team of
industry experts and researchers from Diversio Inc drafted the survey questions. In addition, industry
stakeholders, including the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business (CCAB) and the LGBTQ Chamber of
Commerce, provided expert feedback on the language and phrasing of the questions used in the survey.
Further, three focus groups were included in the initial testing phase, with 60 participants belonging to
equity-deserving groups. Participants tested a large pool of questions for the testing phase, provided
opinions on the questions, and added relevant questions not addressed in the survey.

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
❖ Inclusive leadership
❖ Team building
❖ Employee Inclusive
engagement culture
❖ Adequate resourcing
❖ Empathy building
❖ Absence of
Nepotism/favoritism
❖ Feedback culture Improved Job
❖ Employee Fair
recognition management satisfaction
❖ Pay equity
❖ Biased management
❖ Career
development Talent
Access to optimization
❖ Mentorship
❖ Training network and retention
❖ Networking
❖ Remote work Flexible Increased

❖ Parental leave working creativity,
❖ Time off productivity,
❖ Mental health conditions
and morale
❖ Discrimination
❖ Toxic leadership Safe working
❖ Recourse
❖ Harassment
environment
❖ Retaliation
Figure 1. Framework for the DDIS illustrating the five core themes and sub-themes
Following contributions from the focus group, the authors condensed the survey to 17 questions with
significant changes made to eight questions. After the initial testing phase, the survey underwent a pilot
testing phase involving a diverse sample of working adults from 25 companies in Canada, the U.S., and
the United Kingdom.
Instrument
The current version of the Diversio Diversity and Inclusion Survey (DDIS) consists of three sections: the
Likert-based questions and free-text questions assessing experience (i.e., inclusion), the demographic
and identity questions assessing diversity, and the logistical questions identifying employee roles, levels,
departments, and regions of work. The first section captures the five themes reflecting inclusivity in the
workplace (inclusive culture, fair management, access to networks, safe working environment, and
flexible working conditions). This section consists of five questions representing each theme (see table
2), measured using a five-point Likert scale with options ranging from “No, not at all” to “Yes,
definitely”. In addition, this section offered a free text prompt (what would the organisation do better

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
to support inclusion and belonging at work?) to provide respondents with the opportunity to supplement
the Likert-based questions and add more context to the quantitative data. In the second section, the
survey collects relevant demographic data (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, role, and
disability) of participating individuals from each organisation. Finally, the third section obtains
information on employees’ roles and status in the organisation.
Interpretation of the DDIS involves establishing the dominant versus non-dominant group and scoring
using the responses to the five Likert-based questions (the summated scores can range from 0 to 25).
Typically, especially in North America, the dominant group consists of persons with the demographic
traits (usually white, heterosexual, and non-disabled males) appearing most frequently at the executive
level of an organisation. Thus, the leadership team determines the dominant group and is
company-specific. The non-dominant group comprises everyone who does not belong to the dominant
demographic; hence, they actively seek inclusion in the organisation. Survey responses from the DDIS are
stratified according to the group employees fall under (dominant versus non-dominant). More weight is
ascribed to the non-dominant group’s perception (score on the DDIS) of the D&I at the workplace.
Study population
The reported data was part of an extensive cross-sectional survey of workers from different organisations
spread across the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan,
Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain,
Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, U.S., and Uzbekistan. Participants
were contacted by email and encouraged to participate in the anonymous DDIS survey. Particularly,
importance was placed on recruiting a diverse and representative sample; hence, a deliberate
recruitment effort targeted non-dominant groups. Between January and December 2019,
11,027 respondents in different professional roles spread amongst 18 organisations participated in the
anonymous survey.
Statistical analyses
Responses from the DDIS were retrieved and stored on Microsoft Excel, and statistical analyses were
completed using SPSS statistical software for Windows (version 25, IBM SPSS, 2017). For descriptive
purposes, means and standard deviations (S.D.) were calculated for continuous variables, while
frequency (n) and percentages were determined for categorical variables.
The first section of the survey, which consisted of five questions scored on a Likert scale, investigated
their psychometric properties. The psychometric properties represent the measurement tool’s reliability,
usefulness, and appropriateness in the context it is being used (Portney & Watkins, 2009). For our
analysis, we investigated the reliability, which is the internal consistency of the DDIS.
The internal consistency reliability determines how well a survey accurately measures the investigated
concept(s). Investigators calculate the Cronbach alpha to test the internal consistency of a survey or
questionnaire (Streiner & Kottner, 2014). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reflects the level of
covariance between the items on the survey. Hence, a higher alpha coefficient (0.0 to 1.0) represents a
more consistent scale and a greater chance that the questions genuinely reflect the investigated concept
(Souza et al., 2017). Commonly, alpha coefficients above 0.7 are considered ideal, while values between
0.60 and 0.70 are satisfactory, and values under 0.50 are poor (Souza et al., 2017).
Results
In summary, out of 11,027 survey respondents, 2,227 were excluded because of missing data; thus, the
final sample for this study consisted of 8,800 respondents working in organisations spread across the
globe. Most respondents resided in North America and Europe; however, many responses came from India

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
and South Africa. Most survey respondents identified as men (47%), white (51%), and heterosexual (78%).
Regarding organisation roles, most respondents were general employees (43%), followed by managers
(21%) and executives (7%). Eighteen percent of respondents identified as disabled, and amongst them,
mental and physical impairments were the most reported disabilities. Table 1 provides the main
characteristics of the sample.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents (n = 8800)
Gender n (%)
Female 4048 (46)
Male 4136 (47)
Other 264 (3)
Prefer not to answer 352 (5)
Ethnicity
Asian 1672 (19)
Black 616 (7)
Latin/Hispanic 176 (2)
Middle Eastern 176 (2)
Mixed race 352 (4)
White 4488 (51)
Other 440 (5)
Sexual orientation
Asexual 352 (4)
Bisexual 176 (2)
Gay 88 (1)
Heterosexual 6864 (78)
Other 176 (2)
Disability
Yes 1584 (18)
No 6424 (73)
Role
Associate/support/entry-level/staff 3784 (43)
Management 2464 (28)
The summed score for the DDIS had a mean value of 18.09 and a standard deviation of
5.68 (95% confidence interval: 17.97,18.21). For the internal consistency of the DDIS, the Cronbach’s
Alpha for the survey was 0.840, with all item-total correlations greater than 0.5. Table 2 provides five
questions scored on the Likert scale (the first section of the DDIS representing the five core themes)
and summarises the item-total correlations and Cronbach alpha change after item deletion.

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
Table 2. DDIS first section questions and summary of the internal consistency for the DDIS (n = 8800)
Questions Content Mean score Item-total Cronbach’s

(S.D.) correlation alpha if item
deleted
1. Do you feel your team values Inclusive culture 3.70 (1.35) .691 .796
your opinion?
2. Do you receive fair and Fair management 3.55 (1.42) .743 .780
objective feedback from your
manager on your performance?
3. Is there someone in a position Access to network 3.19 (1.55) .648 .807

of influence at your company
who is invested in your growth
and development? (for example,
your manager)
4. Do you have the flexibility Flexible work 3.78 (1.47) .642 .808
and support you need to conditions
manage personal care
obligations? (for example,
childcare,
elder-care, or personal
commitments)
5. In your experience, is Safe work 3.86 (1.47) .510 .844
COMPANY free from environment
discrimination and harassment?
Discussion
Over the past few decades, diversity and inclusion practices in the workplace have gained prominence,
leading to increased research in this field to highlight and elucidate systemic factors and relevant
frameworks (Boekhorst, 2015; Kaur & Arora, 2020). Organisations use specific metrics, such as
recruitment practices to measure the success of their D&I policies/culture. Further, there is growing
consensus regarding the need for validated tools with solid theoretical frameworks that adequately
capture perceptions of inclusivity at every level of an organisation (Fernandez-Archilla et al., 2020;
Roberson, 2006). Hence, this work aimed to elucidate the conceptual framework used to build the DDIS
and investigate its internal consistency.
The DDIS was built on five core themes: inclusive culture, fair management, access to networks, flexible
working conditions, and a safe working environment. These themes have strong theoretical corroboration
and are valuable indicators of the state of D&I culture at any organisation, as evidenced in previous
studies (Adams et al., 2020; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Konrad, 2006; Kossek et al., 2017; Shore et al.,
2011; Tan, 2019). Further, these core themes have also been used to design surveys used in other
empirical studies investigating D&I in the workplace (Mor-barak & Cherin, 1998; Person et al., 2015).
The reliability of the DDIS as a valid measure of D&I metrics was investigated using data from a cross-
sectional study of employees of different ethnicities, nationalities, and professions. Based on the findings
on the internal consistency of the DDIS, items from the first section (the five Likert-based questions)
showed good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84. The study findings indicate a relatively low

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
random error and a high internal consistency observed with the DDIS. Ergo, the DDIS, by virtue of its high
reliability, provides a reliable instrument to determine the degree of employee perception of the culture
of inclusivity, management’s fairness, network access, the flexibility of working conditions, and safety
of the working environment at any given organisation.
The strength of the DDIS as a measure for D&I also lies in the scale development process. The
methodology (i.e., scale development including conceptual underpinnings and testing of psychometric
properties) employed by the creators followed standard scale development procedures and is similar to
that observed in studies of this nature (Souza et al., 2017). The final version of the DDIS, which we used
to test its reliability, was a product of rigorous testing and input from qualified stakeholders on item
development, refinement, and removal based on a framework relevant to D&I at the workplace.
The DDIS may also be beneficial in its application to a broad range of industries or professions. This is
because the DDIS lacks an industry-specific design typically seen with similar assessment instruments;
for example, tools designed to appraise D&I in academia like the Index of Inclusion Questionnaire
(Fernandez-Archilla et al., 2020). In addition, the DDIS was tested across different industries, offering
evidence of its versatility. Hence, the DDIS instrument has good utility since it can be applied to any
audience or group of users. Data generated is dependable irrespective of industry, including academia,
healthcare, or businesses.
Finally, the DDIS capacity to assess demographic representation and employee perceived inclusivity
within an organisation is significant. Often, D&I assessments, especially for research purposes, mainly
capture demographic factors (e.g., the number of women or individuals living with a disability, as a
measure of diversity and inclusion) (Thompson, 2017). However, such emphasis on demographic factors
is restrictive because it may offer an imprecise assessment of D&I that may not fully capture the
representation and engagement of non-dominant groups within an organisation. The DDIS overcomes this
limitation by capturing both demographic and inclusion metrics.
Although the present study’s findings provide confidence in the utility of the DDIS, there should be more
testing of its psychometric properties. For example, the psychometric evaluation of the DDIS to check
for reproducibility (test-related reliability), which is the consistency of the survey to yield the same
result on repeated trials in similar conditions. A follow-up study with the same participants will help
achieve this. Further, a limitation with all self-report measures is the potential for response bias.
However, the DDIS helps overcome this limitation by adding the free-text prompt accompanying the
Likert-based questions that allow the users to provide context for their choice of answers if they wish
to.
Conclusion
Diversity and inclusion in the workplace are vital as they provide immense benefits at the individual and
organisational levels. To that end, organisations have incorporated practices and policies that boost
institutional capacity for diversity and inclusion. Forefront among such efforts is the development of
reliable instruments to determine the level of engagement and culture of inclusion within an
organisation.
Experts and stakeholders such as Diversio, Workday, Culture Amp, Qualtrix, and Peakon, have
significantly contributed to creating diagnostic and benchmark tools to evaluate D&I metrics. One such
standout instrument is the DDIS by Diversio, which was the focus of our study. To the best of our
knowledge, the DDIS is the only valid diversity and inclusion instrument tested across a broad group of
participants spanning different ethnicities, countries, and professions.
As our findings have shown, the DDIS reliably gathers feedback on questions representing thoroughly
researched and evidence-based constructs of diversity and inclusion. In addition, the high internal
consistency observed with the DDIS signifies good reliability. So, as a diagnostic tool, it can accurately

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
capture D&I metrics and generate relevant data that may identify and address areas needing
improvement or monitor key performance indicators of ongoing D&I programs. Further, the DDIS provides
reliable data for hypothesis generation and research inquiry within the D&I research field in the research
context. Finally, data generated from the DDIS may be used as a reliable yardstick by different users,
including researchers, administrators, and business owners, to gauge their endeavours towards inclusion.
Overall, the DDIS instrument represents a significant step in the right direction towards developing and
growing the diversity and inclusion culture.
Endnotes
1
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reflects the level of covariance between the items on the
survey; Hence, a higher alpha coefficient (0.0 to 1.0) represents a more consistent scale and a
greater chance that the questions genuinely reflect the investigated concept (Souza et al., 2017)
Acknowledgments
We would like to express gratitude to Laura McGee (founder & CEO, Diversio) and Anya Klimbovskaia
(chief operating officer, Diversio) for granting the study team access to their organisation’s data. Lastly,
we would like to thank the University of Waterloo, Diversio, and Mitacs Accelerate (primary funder,
Project IT18980) for their support of our work.
References
Abril, D. (2020, May 24). Remote work may exacerbate diversity and inclusion problems for companies.
Fortune. https://fortune.com/2020/05/24/remote-work-diversity-inclusion-challenges/
Adams, B. G., Meyers, M. C., & Sekaja, L. (2020). Positive leadership: Relationships with employee
inclusion, discrimination, and well-being. Applied Psychology, 69(4), 1145–1173.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12230
Arasli, H., & Tumer, M. (2008). Nepotism, favoritism and cronyism: A study of their effects on job
stress and job satisfaction in the banking industry of North Cyprus. Social Behavior and
Personality, 36(9), 1237–1250. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.9.1237
Bernstein, R. S., Bulger, M., Salipante, P., & Weisinger, J. Y. (2020). From diversity to inclusion to
equity: A theory of generative interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), 395–410.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04180-1
Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social
information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 241–264.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21669
Bond, M. A., & Haynes, M. C. (2014). Workplace diversity: A social-ecological framework and policy
implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 8(1), 167–201.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12005
Brown, K. (2018, December 4). To retain employees, focus on inclusion — not just diversity — Harvard
Business Review. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/12/to-retain-employees-
focus-on-inclusion-not-just-diversity

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
Butler-Henderson, K., Kemp, T., McLeod, K., & Harris, L. (2018). Diverse gender, sex and sexuality:
Managing culturally safe workplaces. HIM-Interchange, 8(3), 10-14.
http://ecite.utas.edu.au/128183
Buttner, H. E., & Lowe, K. B. (2017). The relationship between perceived pay equity, productivity, and
organizational commitment for U.S. professionals of color. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion,
36(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2016-0016
Cecchi-Dimeglio, P. (2017, April 12). How gender bias corrupts performance reviews, and what to do
about it. Havard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/04/how-gender-bias-corrupts-
performance-reviews-and-what-to-do-about-it
Chandler, J. L. (2012). Black women’s perceptions of the relationship among nepotism, cronyism, job
satisfaction, and job focused self-efficacy [Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco].
University of San Francisco Scholarship Repository. https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/32
Davis, P. J., Frolova, Y., & Callahan, W. (2016). Workplace diversity management in Australia: What
do managers think and what are organisations doing? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 35(2),
81–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-03-2015-0020
Downey, S. N., van der Werff, L., Thomas, K. M., & Plaut, V. C. (2015). The role of diversity practices
and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 45(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12273
Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy: Challenges and opportunities for
psychology. American Psychologist, 63(4), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.63.4.252
Fernandez-Archilla, J. A., Alvarez, J. F., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Trigueros, R., Alonso-Lopez, I. D., &
Echeita, G. (2020). Validation of the index for inclusion questionnaire for compulsory secondary
education students. Sustainability, 12(6) 2169, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062169
Fields, M. R. (2009). Managing diversity: Expert solutions to everyday challenges. Harvard Business
Press.
Forbes, S., Birkett, H., Lori, E., Chung, H., & Whiteman, J. (2020). Managing employees during the
COVID-19 pandemic: Flexible working and the future of work. Centre for Responsible Business.
University of Birmingham (U.K.). https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-social-
sciences/business/research/responsible-business/managerial-experiences-during-covid19-2020-
accessible.pdf
Fredette, C., Bradshaw, P., & Krause, H. (2016). From diversity to inclusion: A multimethod study of
diverse governing groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 28S-51S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015599456
Gill, G. K., McNally, M. J., & Berman, V. (2018). Effective diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.
Healthcare Management Forum, 31(5), 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0840470418773785
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family
enrichment. The Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379625
Harlan, S. L., & White Berheide, C. (1994). Barriers to workplace advancement experienced by women
in low-paying occupations. Cornell University Digital Collections ILR School.
https://hdl.handle.net/1813/79400

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
Jones, R. G., Stout, T., Harder, B., Levine, E. L., Levine, J., & Sanchez, J. I. (2008). Personnel
psychology and nepotism: Should we support anti-nepotism policies? The Industrial-
Organizational Psychologist, 45(3), 17–20.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.

Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
Kaur, N., & Arora, P. (2020). Acknowledging gender diversity and inclusion as key to organizational
growth: A review and trends. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(6), 125–131.
https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.06.25
Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the
intensification of work. Human Relations, 63(1), 83–106.
Klarsfeld, A., Ng, E., & Tatli, A. (2012). Social regulation and diversity management: A comparative
study of France, Canada and the U.K. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 18(4), 309–327.
Konrad, A. M. (2006). Leveraging workplace diversity in organizations. Organization Management

Journal, 3(3), 164–189. https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2006.18
Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. (2000). The impact of work-life management on firm productivity.
Strategic Management Journal, 21(12), 1225–1237. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3094455
Kossek, E. E., Su, R., & Wu, L. (2017). “Opting Out” or “Pushed Out”? Integrating perspectives on
women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. Journal of Management, 43(1),
228–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316671582
Magalhaes, L., Carrasco, C., & Gastaldo, D. (2010). Undocumented migrants in Canada: A scope
literature review on health, access to services, and working conditions. Journal of Immigrant
and Minority Health, 12(1), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-009-9280-5
McCuiston, V. E., Ross Wooldridge, B., & Pierce, C. K. (2004). Leading the diverse workforce: Profit,
prospects and progress. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(1), 73–92.
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).
https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v22n01_04
Mor-Barak, M. E., & Levin, A. (2002). Outside of the corporate mainstream and excluded from the work
community: A study of diversity, job satisfaction and well-being. Community, Work & Family,
5(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800220146346
Mor-Barak, M. E., Lizano, E. L., Kim, A., Duan, L., Rhee, M.-K., Hsiao, H.-Y., Brimhall, K. C. (2016).
The promise of diversity management for climate of inclusion: A state-of-the-art review and
meta-analysis. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(4),
305–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1138915
Nair, N., & Vohra, N. (2015). Diversity and inclusion at the workplace: A review of research and
perspectives. IIMA working papers WP2015-03-34. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad,
Research and Publication Department.
http://vslir.iima.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/11718/16616/1/WP2015-03-34.pdf

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(6), 1754–1774. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823
Padgett, M. Y., & Morris, K. A. (2005). Keeping it “All in the Family”: Does nepotism in the hiring
process really benefit the beneficiary? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2),
34–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501100205
Pelletier, R., Patterson, M., & Moyser, M. (2019). The gender wage gap in Canada: 1998 to 2018
[Labour statistics: research papers]. Statistics Canada.
https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.878125/publication.html
Person, S. D., Jordan, C. G., Allison, J. J., Fink Ogawa, L. M., Castillo-Page, L., Conrad, S.,
Nivet, M. A., & Plummer, D. L. (2015). Measuring diversity and inclusion in academic
medicine: The diversity engagement survey (DES). Academic Medicine, 90(12), 1675–1683.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000921
Podsiadlowski, A., Gröschke, D., Kogler, M., Springer, C., & van der Zee, K. (2013). Managing a
culturally diverse workforce: Diversity perspectives in organizations. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 37(2), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.09.001
Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2009). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice, 3rd
Edition. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Prasad, P., Pringle, J. K., & Konrad, A. (2006). Examining the contours of workplace diversity.
Handbook of Workplace Diversity, 1–22. http://www.corwin.com/upm-
data/7424_01_Konrad_Introduction.pdf
Raver, J. L., & Nishii, L. H. (2010). Once, twice, or three times as harmful? Ethnic harassment, gender
harassment, and generalized workplace harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 236–
254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018377
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group
and Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273064
Saunderson, R. (2004). Survey findings of the effectiveness of employee recognition in the public
sector. Public Personnel Management, 33(3), 255–275.
Schmidt, B. J., MacWilliams, B. R., & Neal-Boylan, L. (2017). Becoming inclusive: A code of conduct for
inclusion and diversity. Journal of Professional Nursing, 33(2), 102–107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.08.014
Schmitt, M. T., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for
psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 921–948.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035754
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human
Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and
diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management,
37(4), 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
Singh, N., Sengupta, S., & Dev, S. (2018). Toxic leadership: The most menacing form of leadership. In
M. Fors Brandebo, & A. Alvinius (Eds.), Dark sides of organizational behavior and leadership.
InTechOpen.

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00
Souza, A. C. de, Alexandre, N. M. C., & Guirardello, E. de B. (2017). Psychometric properties in

instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Applications of Epidemiology, 26(3), 649–659.
https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742017000300022
Streiner, D. L., & Kottner, J. (2014). Recommendations for reporting the results of studies of
instrument and scale development and testing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(9), 1970–1979.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12402
Tan, T. Q. (2019). Principles of inclusion, diversity, access, and equity. Journal of Infectious Diseases,
220(2), S30–S32. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz198
Thompson, S. J. (2017). Defining and measuring ‘Inclusion’ within an organization. K4D; Helpdesk
Report. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
Williams, J. C., & Multhaup, M. (2018, March 5). For women and minorities to get ahead, managers
must assign work fairly. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/03/for-women-and-
minorities-to-get-ahead-managers-must-assign-work-fairly
Williams, M. (2018). For women of colour, there’s a gap within the pay gap. Macleans.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/for-women-of-colour-theres-a-gap-within-the-pay-gap/
Yang, Y., & Konrad, A. M. (2011). Diversity management practices: Implications of institutional theory
and resource-based theory. Group & Organization Management, 36(1), 6–38.
Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The
social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 3–63). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Somkene Igboanugo ([email protected]) is a 4th-year doctoral student in the Department of Public

Health Sciences at the University of Waterloo. He has an M.D. degree and an MSc in Public Health and
Health Systems. His research focuses on psychosocial stress and its’ biological embedding in the
workplace. As an ardent advocate for mental health awareness amongst racialized community members,
the author is interested in exploring the intersectionality of mental health and diversity and inclusion
practices, especially in Canadian workplaces.
Jieru Yang ([email protected]) is a 3rd-year undergraduate student in the Ivey Business School
HBA Program at the University of Western Ontario. She has a background working in business development
and finance and is still determining what she plans to pursue post-undergraduate studies. Jieru has done
notable work in diversity and inclusion practices, both in her school and community.
Phil Bigelow ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Public Health

Sciences at the University of Waterloo. He has a background in epidemiology and teaches courses at the
graduate and undergraduate levels in occupational and environmental epidemiology. He holds an
appointment at the Institute for Work & Health, where he was a specialist in intervention studies before
joining the University of Waterloo. Phil has an interest in the mental health of workers and the public
due to occupational and environmental exposures. He led a multidisciplinary research team that studied
the health impacts of wind turbine noise on residents’ quality of life. These studies investigated the
relationships between noise exposure, sleep quality, fatigue, and mental health.

DOI: 10.33137/ijidi.v6i3.37507

91.216.181.46 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:24:00 +00:00

Igboanugo BuildingFrameworkInclusive 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Igboanugo BuildingFrameworkInclusive 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Igboanugo BuildingFrameworkInclusive 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, and Inclusion (IJIDI)

Building a Framework for an Inclusive Workplace Culture

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48700868

This content downloaded from

Keywords: diversity, inclusion, scale development, survey, workplace culture

Publication Type: research

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

Conceptual Framework for the Diversio Diversity and Inclusion Survey

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

Flexible Working Conditions

Safe Working Environment

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

Development of the Diversio Diversity and Inclusion Survey – Psychometric Properties

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

❖ Remote work Flexible Increased

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents (n = 8800)

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

Questions Content Mean score Item-total Cronbach’s

3. Is there someone in a position Access to network 3.19 (1.55) .648 .807

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.

Konrad, A. M. (2006). Leveraging workplace diversity in organizations. Organization Management

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

Souza, A. C. de, Alexandre, N. M. C., & Guirardello, E. de B. (2017). Psychometric properties in

Somkene Igboanugo ([email protected]) is a 4th-year doctoral student in the Department of Public

Phil Bigelow ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Public Health

The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 6(3), 2022

This content downloaded from

You might also like