Received: 7 April 2022 Revised: 30 November 2023 Accepted: 26 January 2024

DOI: 10.1002/job.2779

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Working from everywhere: The future of work and inclusive organizational behavior (IOB)

Inclusion near and far: A qualitative investigation of inclusive

organizational behavior across work modalities and social
identities

Lindsay Y. Dhanani 1 Mohsin Sultan 2 | Carolyn T. Pham 3

| | Keisuke Mikami 2 |
Daniel Ryan Charles 3 | Hannah A. Crandell 4

1
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New
Jersey, USA Summary
2
Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA Though there are clear benefits of being included at work, important questions about
3
DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
employees' views and experiences of workplace inclusion remain unanswered. First,
4
University of Central Florida, Orlando,
scholars have tended to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach that assumes that inclu-
Florida, USA
sion is viewed and experienced similarly by all employees, regardless of their social
Correspondence
Lindsay Y. Dhanani, Rutgers University, New
identities. Moreover, there have been rapid shifts in work modalities over the last
Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. few years, and it is currently unclear how modality impacts inclusion and if that
Email: ld733@smlr.rutgers.edu
impact is similar across all employees. To address these questions, we leveraged qual-
Funding information itative data from a demographically diverse sample to examine how employees define
No funding was used for this study.
workplace inclusion, what practices and behaviors employees associate with feeling
included, how social identities shape definitions and experiences of inclusion, and the
modalities in which employees feel the most included. Results indicated that
employees primarily define workplace inclusion as being accepted and treated
equally regardless of their identities, being integrated into decision-making, and
expressing themselves authentically. Though employees defined inclusion similarly
regardless of their social identities, the importance of specific inclusion practices dif-
fered across subgroups. Finally, employees felt more included when working in per-
son, though minoritized employees were more likely to prefer remote work.
Theoretical and practical implications regarding inclusion are discussed.

KEYWORDS
inclusive organizational behavior, work modality, workplace inclusion

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N before (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). The shifting demographic

composition of the workforce has spurred ample scientific literature
The United States workforce has become increasingly diverse over dedicated to understanding the impact of diversity on employee and
the last few decades and currently includes a greater number of organizational outcomes (e.g., Holmes et al., 2021; Simons &
employees belonging to traditionally minoritized groups than ever Rowland, 2011). However, scholars have come to recognize the

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Organizational Behavior published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

J Organ Behav. 2024;1–18. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 1


2 DHANANI ET AL.
limitations of focusing on the demographic composition of the work-
force alone and have correspondingly argued for a paradigm shift to
instead emphasize workplace inclusion, or the degree to which organi-
zations integrate employees of diverse backgrounds into the workplace
(Nishii, 2013; Roberson, 2006). Early studies advocating for this
approach demonstrated the benefits of workplace inclusion with results
suggesting that inclusion was the key to leveraging diversity to achieve
positive organizational outcomes (Mor Barak et al., 2016; Shore
et al., 2011). Scholars and practitioners have since dedicated substantial
research and resources toward understanding and bolstering employees'
feelings of inclusion (Brimhall et al., 2017; Jehanzeb & Bashir, 2013).
Though previous studies have documented the benefits of cultivat-
ing organizational environments that engender feelings of inclusion
among employees, important questions remain unanswered about how
employees view and experience inclusion at work, which limits our ability
to craft inclusive workplaces. First, current definitions of inclusion and
conceptualizations of inclusive practices have not been generated in
employee-centered ways. That is, conceptualizations of inclusion have
been developed with little investigation of how employees themselves
would construct definitions of workplace inclusion and the organizational
behaviors or policies employees most closely associate with feeling
included at work (e.g., Jansen et al., 2014; Shore et al., 2011). This limita-
tion is of particular concern because extant conceptualizations of work-
place inclusion have adopted a one-size-fits-all approach in which it is
assumed that inclusion is viewed and experienced similarly across all
employees (Apfelbaum et al., 2016). Yet, extant conceptual frameworks
of inclusion suggest that employees might view and experience inclusion
differently as a function of their social identities or may need unique
inclusion practices that signal a value for specific demographic groups
(e.g., Jansen et al., 2014; Randel, 2023). Combined with evidence that the
US workforce is becoming more diverse than ever (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2021), incorporating traditionally minoritized employees' views
is critical for extending existing definitions and theories of inclusion.
Moreover, the nature of work has rapidly shifted since the onset of
the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a record number of employees
working remotely some or all the time (Shockley et al., 2021; Zhang
et al., 2021) as well as many recent calls for employees to return to the
office. However, the consequences of these emergent work practices on
workplace inclusion are still unknown. This issue is essential to address
because, as some scholars have noted, working from home presents
novel challenges and opportunities, making it difficult to generalize previ-
ous findings on workplace inclusion (Kniffin et al., 2021). Further, the lit-
erature currently offers relatively little guidance regarding what modality
to adopt to maximize feelings of inclusion, making it difficult to provide
recommendations to organizations as they navigate important and press-
ing decisions about modality moving forward. Importantly, it is also possi-
ble that employees' social identities shape the modality in which they feel
most included. In particular, given that minoritized employees face nega-
tive treatment and unique obstacles at work, working remotely may pro-
vide employees with greater opportunities to craft workplace
experiences that are free of these challenges (Brooks, 2021; Janin, 2022).
Drawing on these key issues, the current paper aims to utilize
qualitative data from a sample of demographically diverse employees
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
to understand (1) how employees define workplace inclusion, (2) what
practices and behaviors employees associate with feeling included,
(3) whether and how social identities shape employees' views and
experiences of workplace inclusion, and (4) the modalities in which
employees feel most included. The current paper correspondingly
contributes to our understanding of workplace inclusion in two impor-
tant ways. First, we investigate the ways that employees themselves
view and experience inclusion at work. Taking this approach allows us
to both evaluate the degree to which current definitions of inclusion
converge with employees' views and capture potential differences in
how employees with various social identities view workplace inclu-
sion. Understanding whether views differ across subgroups of
employees can improve our theoretical understanding of inclusion
and identify any potentially needed revisions of extant definitions and
models of inclusive practices. Moreover, examining differences in the
inclusive practices emphasized by specific subgroups of employees
can inform organizational practice by identifying whether adopting a
uniform set of inclusive practices and behaviors is sufficient for fos-
tering inclusion among all organizational members or whether tailored
approaches are needed to reach specific demographic groups. Failing
to pinpoint any specific practices needed to facilitate inclusion for par-
ticular minoritized groups could exacerbate existing inequities in the
workplace and create a further disadvantage (Kiradoo, 2022).
Second, we illuminate the modalities in which employees feel
most included and illustrate examples of how organizations have over-
come challenges presented by the shifting nature of work. As organi-
zations continue to navigate shifts in work modalities and debate
return-to-office mandates, it is important to empirically investigate
the potential ramifications of these decisions for employee inclusion
and whether they might differ across subgroups of employees. That
is, organizations should make informed decisions about how modality
decisions will impact their employees and whether the selected
modality has the potential to foster inequity among minoritized
employees and employees from dominant groups (Schur et al., 2020).
Practitioners and scholars can thus utilize findings from the current
study to better predict and improve feelings of inclusion for
employees working in a variety of modalities and design support
for employees as they undergo modality changes.
In the sections below, we elaborate on the purpose of this study
by first briefly reviewing the existing definitions of workplace inclu-
sion and then considering how views of inclusion might be impacted
by demographic group membership. Finally, we conclude by examin-
ing the impact of work modality on feelings of inclusion and consider
how social identities might shape modality preferences.
1.1 | Defining workplace inclusion from
employees' point of view
Workplace inclusion was introduced into the organizational sciences
over two decades ago, though it has origins in social psychology and
social work that predate its emergence as an organizational construct
(Shore et al., 2011). Throughout its history, research on workplace

DHANANI ET AL.
inclusion has yielded varied conceptualizations of the construct. That
is, scholars have drawn on diverse theoretical frameworks to concep-
tualize and define inclusion, including diversity management (Ely &
Thomas, 2001), social capital (Pearce & Randel, 2004), social identity
(Randel, 2023), and psychological needs (Morganson et al., 2010) per-
spectives. One particularly influential conceptualization in the under-
standing of workplace inclusion, proposed by Shore et al. (2011),
suggests that inclusion represents the two underlying dimensions of
belongingness and uniqueness. To elaborate, Shore et al. (2011) drew
on optimal distinctiveness theory to posit that employees will per-
ceive that they are valued members of the workgroup when their
competing needs for belongingness in the group and a value for
their uniqueness as an individual are met. This conceptualization has
been integrated into several subsequent studies that have developed
models of inclusive behaviors (Randel et al., 2018) or linked these
dimensions of inclusion to a variety of employee outcomes, such as
helping behavior, creativity, performance (Chung et al., 2020), and
team satisfaction (de Cooman et al., 2016).
However, despite the advancements offered by Shore
et al.'s (2011, 2018) work, there are still important questions about
employee views of workplace inclusion that persist. In particular, the
extant work that Shore et al. (2011, 2018) synthesized to develop
their definition of inclusion had a notable absence of studies that
sought to understand how employees construct definitions of their
own inclusion (cf. Roberson, 2006). Asking employees about their per-
sonally held definitions of inclusion and the practices they most
closely relate to their own feelings of inclusion is vital, as they may
not match the definitions that scholars have generated, and such a
discrepancy might produce an inaccurate understanding of what
makes employees feel included. As such, a better understanding of
employee-held definitions of workplace inclusion would enable us to
evaluate and potentially amend current conceptualizations of work-
place inclusion and its associated practices and behaviors. We, there-
fore, aim to examine employees' definitions of workplace inclusion
and the specific organizational, coworker, and supervisor practices
that engender feelings of inclusion. This allows us to capture both
employees' views of what inclusion reflects and the behaviors, poli-
cies, and practices that most engender feelings of inclusion. Thus, we
propose the following research questions:
Research Question 1: How do employees define workplace
inclusion?
Research Question 2: What organizational practices do
employees associate with feeling included?
Research Question 3: What coworker and supervisor behaviors
do employees associate with feeling included?
1.2 | Inclusion across different social identities
One of the ambiguities that has resulted from the extant approaches
to generating definitions of workplace inclusion is that it is unclear
whether inclusion is perceived and experienced in the same way
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3
across all employees (Apfelbaum et al., 2016). Therefore, in the cur-
rent study, we are particularly interested in identifying whether
employees with various social identities construct workplace inclusion
differently. That is, although scholars have emphasized that workplace
inclusion can be felt by and benefit all employees (e.g., Nishii, 2013),
employees with traditionally minoritized social identities may hold
unique definitions of workplace inclusion or emphasize different prac-
tices, behaviors, and experiences associated with feeling included.
One potential explanation for such differences is that employees' spe-
cific needs may vary across social identities. For example, Jansen et al.
(2014) draw on optimal distinctiveness theory and self-determination
theory to posit that workgroup members who are viewed as more
prototypical may not place as much value on inclusive practices that
communicate a value for differences because they share a large
degree of similarity to most of their other colleagues. In contrast, min-
oritized workgroup members may strongly emphasize a value for
uniqueness in their definitions of inclusion because they are viewed
as less prototypical. Stated differently, Jansen et al. (2014) propose
that minoritized employees may place the most value on inclusive
behaviors related to embracing their uniqueness whereas members of
dominant social groups may instead emphasize inclusive behaviors
that center around their relatedness.
Moreover, recent work that advanced a social identity theory
framework for understanding workplace inclusion also corroborates
the proposition that employees belonging to different demographic
groups may construct their views of inclusion in different ways
(Randel, 2023). Social identity theory maintains that people seek
membership in groups when it provides them with a source of positive
self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Using this social identity theory
lens, Randel (2023) argues that employees value inclusive practices
because they signal that their social groups are held in positive regard
within the organization, therefore satisfying their desire to derive self-
esteem from their group membership. Yet, the practices that are
needed to signal that value are likely different across demographic
groups. That is, though there may be general signals organizations can
send that indicate a value for all groups, individual demographic
groups have unique experiences, needs, and characteristics, and face
different barriers in the workplace (Scarborough et al., 2019). Mem-
bers of these groups may thus look to the organization to engage in
practices that are most salient to their identities. As one example, the
most relevant signal to an employee with a mobility-related disability
might be the provision of accommodations to the physical work envi-
ronment whereas other employees may not incorporate that practice
into their views of workplace inclusion (Kuznetsova & Bento, 2018).
As another example, in their recent work on LGBTQ organizational
systems, Roberson et al. (2023) highlighted the need for organizations
to engage in inclusion practices that are specific to LGBTQ+
employees, such as having gender transition guidelines and using
gender-inclusive language in organizational communication.
Drawing on the above rationale, we posit that employees might
possess distinctive expectations and understandings for workplace
inclusion depending on their social identities. Allowing employees to
constitute their own definitions of inclusion can illuminate the

4 DHANANI ET AL.
requisite conditions and practices needed for employees to feel a
sense of inclusion at work and whether these conditions vary as a
function of social identity. We thus formulate the following research
question:
Research Question 4: Does the definition of workplace inclusion
differ across subgroups of employees?
Research Question 5: Do the organizational practices and behav-
iors associated with workplace inclusion differ across subgroups
of employees?
1.3 | Inclusion across modalities
We finally consider the impact of work modality (i.e., whether
employees work in person, remotely, or in a hybrid format) on views
of workplace inclusion and how social identities may shape preferred
modalities. The greatest impact on work modality in recent times was
the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within the first 2 months of
the pandemic, many employees saw dramatic shifts in their work
modality, with nearly half reporting they were working remotely
(Brynjolfsson et al., 2020). The uncertainty surrounding the pandemic,
its effects on employment, and the shift to remote work forced many
organizations and their employees to adapt to a new way of working,
often with little forewarning or preparation. The sudden change in
work modality brought on novel concerns, such as employees feeling
socially isolated and lonely (Wang et al., 2021) and their feelings of
belongingness within the organization (Andel et al., 2021).
This change in work modality may also affect employees' feelings
of inclusion. For example, the inability to physically meet with col-
leagues and supervisors may lead to increased feelings of isolation
compared to working in person. Indeed, employees point to a lack of
social contact as the main drawback of remote work (Bentley
et al., 2016; Wiesenfeld et al., 2001). Remote work is further accom-
panied by barriers to communication and coordination (Hinds &
Bailey, 2003) and feeling as though one's work is disconnected from
the organization's broader goals (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Addi-
tionally, remote employees may receive less social support and have
reduced access to resources, potentially further reducing feelings of
inclusion. Given these challenges, extant work has confirmed that
remote employees feel less included than those working in the office
(Morganson et al., 2010).
However, a counter perspective is also plausible despite the initial
evidence suggesting that remote work is detrimental to inclusion. That
is, it is also possible that the emergence of the work-from-home
modality might positively impact perceptions of inclusion, at least for
some employees. Generally, remote work allows for greater flexibility
and reduces some demands related to work, such as commuting. In
fact, evidence suggests that employees experience more positive
affect and are more satisfied when working remotely (Anderson
et al., 2015; Putra et al., 2020). Moreover, employees with tradition-
ally marginalized identities may experience more benefits than their
counterparts. For example, employees may leverage remote work to
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
avoid undesired or discriminatory interpersonal interactions with col-
leagues (Brooks, 2021; Janin, 2022). Supporting this claim, a survey
conducted by Future Forum found that most employees working
remotely preferred to continue to do so, but this preference was
strongest among Black employees (Miller, 2021). Some LGBTQ+
employees have similarly described that they prefer remote work
because it allows them to present more authentically and minimizes
the risk of discrimination (Liu, 2021).
These divergent rationales yield unclear expectations regarding
the relationship between work modality and feelings of inclusion. This
ambiguity is heightened by the relative absence of empirical evidence
and the dearth of previous considerations regarding how work modal-
ity may differentially affect feelings of inclusion across subgroups of
employees. We argue that investigating this issue would assist organi-
zations in choosing best practices that optimize inclusivity. Moreover,
though these issues became particularly salient in the COVID-19 era,
concerns about the implications of work modality for inclusion are
essential to contend with moving forward as remote work options
are likely to persist even after the pandemic and as organizations
grapple with return to office decisions (Malhotra, 2021). We, there-
fore, explore the following research questions:
Research Question 6: How do different types of work modalities
(virtual/remote, face-to-face, or hybrid) relate to employees'
feelings of inclusion?
Research Question 7: Do modality preferences differ across sub-
groups of employees?
2 | METHOD
2.1 | Participants
We recruited participants to complete a qualitative survey through
Prolific Academic. This online survey research platform connects eligi-
ble participants with relevant surveys. Participants were eligible to
complete the survey if they were employed full- or part-time and
resided within the United States. Further, to ensure demographic
diversity, we used a stratified sampling strategy in which participants
were stratified a priori based on race, sex, and sexual orientation. We
further oversampled participants who identified as having a disability
or identified as transgender, nonbinary, or genderqueer to increase
the representation of traditionally minoritized employees. A total of
403 participants completed the survey.
The mean age of participants was 34.12 (SD = 10.69), and 57.8%
of participants were female. Most participants identified as cisgender
(91.6%), and the remaining 8.4% identified as transgender, nonbinary,
or genderqueer. Regarding sexual orientation, 58.1% identified as het-
erosexual, with 8.9% identifying as gay or lesbian, 28.3% identifying
as pansexual or bisexual, and 4.7% identifying as another sexual orien-
tation. When asked about race/ethnicity, 42.5% of participants identi-
fied as White, 13.4% identified as Black or African-American, 14.8%
identified as Hispanic, 14.4% identified as Asian, 1.8% identified as

DHANANI ET AL.
biracial or mixed race, and 1.4% identified as another race or ethnicity.
Regarding religion, 32.5% identified as Christian, 57.3% identified as
atheist, agnostic, or non-religious, and 6.2% identified as another reli-
gion. Finally, 25.3% identified as having a disability. Participants
worked in various industries, with education, finance, healthcare,
retail, and manufacturing being the most represented. Additionally,
15% of our sample held managerial positions.
2.2 | Measures
2.2.1 | Open-ended questions
The current study employed a series of open-ended questions to
address our research questions. First, to address Research Question
1, we asked participants, “What does inclusion in the workplace mean
to you? In other words, how would you define an inclusive work-
place?” This question was focused on understanding the global defini-
tions of inclusion that employees held and the high-level contextual/
environmental features related to those definitions. Next, to address
Research Questions 2 and 3, we asked participants a series of ques-
tions about the specific organizational policies and practices and
supervisor and coworker behaviors that made them feel included.
More specifically, we asked participants, “What specific organizational
practices and/or policies have contributed to making you feel included
in your current workplace?,” “What behaviors from your leader or
supervisor have contributed to making you feel included in your cur-
rent workplace?,” and “What behaviors from your coworkers have
contributed to making you feel included in your current workplace?”
We additionally asked participants a supplemental question
(i.e., “What could your organization, leader/supervisor, or coworkers
do differently to make you feel more included?”) to ensure we cap-
tured the full range of behaviors and practices related to inclusion.
That is, there may be behaviors or practices associated with inclusion
that our respondents had not personally been exposed to in their cur-
rent workplaces, so we designed a question to capture any such
behaviors. Finally, to answer Research Questions 6 and 7, we asked
participants two questions about the impact of their work modality on
their feelings of inclusion. The first question asked participants which
modality (i.e., working in person, remotely, or in a hybrid format) made
them feel most included, whereas the second asked, “How has your
current work modality impacted your feelings of inclusion in the
workplace?”
2.3 | Analyses
Data from the open-ended questions were analyzed using inductive
thematic analysis. Following recommended procedures (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967) and procedures used in similar qualitative studies
(e.g., Colquitt et al., 2015), the first three authors of the current study
analyzed the open-ended responses in two stages. In the first stage,
the three coders independently read through the responses to each
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5
open-ended question and constructed themes that captured the
respondents' answers. The coders identified new themes until theo-
retical saturation was reached, defined as reading 20 consecutive
responses without generating a new theme for that question (Colquitt
et al., 2015). The three coders then discussed the generated themes
to create a final set of coding themes for each question. During this
process, we relied on extant conceptual and empirical work on work-
place inclusion to determine the wording and meaning of underlying
codes (Colquitt et al., 2015). This ensured that the themes extracted
from our qualitative data were relevant to and consistent with prior
work on inclusion. We retained themes only if they were represented
in at least five responses.
We next examined the resultant codes and the extant literature
on workplace inclusion to identify whether any of our codes repre-
sented broader themes that reflected the same underlying dimension
of inclusion. This resulted in a hierarchical structure to our data lead-
ing us to organize some codes under broader themes. For example,
many employees described that they felt included when their organi-
zation listened to and solicited diverse viewpoints and/or when those
diverse views impacted decision-making processes. These two sub-
themes were combined to reflect the broader theme of integrating
diverse views (Nishii, 2013).
The second stage then consisted of coding the individual
responses according to the themes represented therein. The same
three coders initially coded a subset of responses from 40 participants
to ensure conceptual clarity of the themes (i.e., 280 total responses
were coded across the seven items). At this stage, coders discussed
any disagreements to reach a consensus. During the practice coding
phase, the coders also made minor adjustments to the coding themes
to increase precision. The remaining responses were then double-
coded such that all responses were coded by the first author and
double-coded by either the second or third author. We established
interrater reliability by estimating a kappa value, which was .77. This
falls above the cutoff for acceptable agreement across raters
(Cohen, 1960). Coders again discussed any discrepancies in detail until
reaching a consensus.
Finally, we also conducted subgroup analyses to determine if the
themes indicated by participants differed as a function of their social
identities (Research Questions 4, 5, and 7). We assessed these poten-
tial subgroup differences by conducting chi-square tests, which esti-
mated whether the themes participants indicated were independent
of their social identities. Stated differently, chi-square analyses allow
us to determine if people with certain social identities were more
likely to endorse particular themes when defining workplace inclusion
or indicating the modality in which they felt most included. A nonsig-
nificant chi-square value would indicate that the themes respondents
noted were independent of their social identities, whereas a signifi-
cant chi-square value would indicate that themes are not independent
of social identity. In addition to the overall chi-square value, we also
present the observed and expected values for each demographic
group to evaluate the themes on which respondents differed as a
function of their social identity. The observed values indicate the per-
centage of people in each demographic category who endorsed each
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 DHANANI ET AL.

theme, and the expected values indicate the percentage of people in Respondents commonly stated that inclusive workplaces should “cele-
each category expected to endorse each theme if responses were brate” differences among employees and ensure that every employee
independent of identity. The difference between these two values has equal opportunities for professional growth, equal access to
demonstrates where nonindependence lies. work-related resources, and is equally welcomed into the social net-
works within the organization. For example, one respondent wrote,
“Differences within the workforce are usually highlighted and cele-
3 | RESULTS brated. People should not feel alienated because they come from a
different background than their coworkers.” Some also linked this
3.1 | How do employees define inclusion? theme with explicit practices or policies the organization might imple-
ment. For example, another respondent indicated:
A summary of the themes for the question asking participants to
define workplace inclusion is presented in Table 1. Answering An inclusive workplace is accommodating and encour-
Research Question 1, the most common themes represented among aging of a diverse workplace, and finds ways to help
responses were that inclusive workplaces ensure open acceptance of the diverse employees thrive. This might mean physical
all employees regardless of their social identities or backgrounds and accommodations, like ramps, quiet places to work, and
provide employees with equal treatment and opportunity. more comfortable seating or workplaces. This could

TABLE 1 Themes for definitions of workplace inclusion.

Theme Examples Frequency

Experiencing positive states at work (e.g.,
feeling safe, comfortable)
Integrating diverse views
Listening to diverse opinions or
viewpoints
Using opinions or viewpoints in decision
making
Open acceptance of employees
Ensuring equal treatment and opportunity
Influencing employee treatment
Facilitating positive treatment
Prohibiting negative treatment
Being able to openly express one's
identities without pressure to assimilate
Creating a bond among employees
Representation of various social identities
Employees being united by working
toward a common goal
Defining inclusion as the same as diversity
Negative views of inclusion
“Inclusion is feeling welcome when I arrive at work and not afraid of being seen by 7.6%
others.”
“Inclusion means that people of any background are welcomed. They are included in 16.5%
important conversations and their opinions are valued. Inclusion means no one feels
left out or unheard.”
“A workplace that incorporates all perspectives into the decision making processes.” 5.6%
“Inclusion in the workplace to me means everyone feels involved and part of the group. It 28.1%
means that even if someone is seemingly very different than the rest of the group
they're still treated like “one of us” and included. I think you can have diversity in the
workplace without having inclusion which is just as important.”
“Inclusion in the workplace means that no matter who you are, you have a chance to 20.3%
succeed. That means men, women, minorities, and anyone with disabilities can move
up the ladder if they have what it takes.”
“Differences in within the workforce are usually highlighted and celebrated.” 2.0%
“No one is excluded from a group for any reason. There is no discrimination when at the 5.1%
workplace and everyone works together.”
“I should be able to go to work and not have to hide the fact that I am gay for fear of 5.2%
being targeted, rediculed or treated unfairly due to my preference.”
“An inclusive workplace has a culture that fosters connection and interaction between 1.0%
people of all different backgrounds.”
“It also is a workplace that is representative of the community it serves. I don't think you 4.3%
can have an inclusive workplace without having a diverse workplace.”
“Inclusion means that even if people are different they are able to be part of the group 1.0%
because they all work on the same thing. They are able to find common ground in the
work. It means that the work makes them the same and everything else doesn't
matter.”
“Inclusion and diversity are identical to me. It means the exact same. Having the best 1.7%
people for the job regardless of race, color, sex, or background.”
“Some people do not belong in some jobs. Forcing a company to fill positions based on a 1.0%
‘fair’ distribution forces those companies to hire people who do not satisfy the job
requirements. This in turn causes retaliation of hard working employees who earned
their job through perseverance and determination.”
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DHANANI ET AL. 7

also mean a workplace that does not have a strict dress
code, or one that allows employees to occasionally
work from home.
Other respondents similarly defined inclusion as accepting people
of all identities but also emphasized that productivity should still be
the focus (e.g., “Inclusion means accepting everyone for who they are.
The focus should be on work and as long work gets done, people's dif-
ferences should not be an issue.”).
The next most common theme was integrating diverse views,
which reflected that inclusive organizations listen to and accept
diverse viewpoints and use them in decision-making. Indeed, many
respondents emphasized that the benefit of having diverse
employees is the unique perspectives those employees can offer
and that integrating different ideas and viewpoints into the
decision-making process is integral to capitalizing on the benefits of
diversity. Some also depicted this as the critical differentiation
between simply having a diverse workplace and having an inclusive
one. For example, one respondent wrote, “I would define inclusivity
as a step above diversity, in the sense that diversity just ensures that
people are in the room - while inclusivity ensures that all voices are
given equal merit in the room.” Another respondent similarly noted
that “Inclusion in the workplace takes the diversity of the workforce
and acts upon it. E.g., it changes nothing if you have a diverse
working population but only here [sic] the suggestions of people
who are in ‘The Majority’.”
Another theme that emerged was that employees felt included
when their organizations created environments where they felt posi-
tive emotions and states at work. These responses emphasized feeling
safe and comfortable at work but also noted other positive emotions
such as pride and joy. Further, some respondents defined an inclusive
workplace as one where employees can openly express their identities
without judgment or reprisal, or one that does not force employees to
assimilate. A respondent illustrates this aspect of inclusion in the fol-
lowing response: “I should be able to go to work and not have to hide
the fact that I am gay for fear of being targeted, ridiculed, or treated
unfairly due to my preference.”
3.2 | Does the definition differ across subgroups?
As stated in Research Questions 4 and 5, we were also interested in
whether the definitions offered for inclusion differed as a function of
employees' social identities. We conducted a series of chi-square tests
to assess whether the themes for workplace inclusion were
independent of a range of social identities (i.e., race, sex, gender iden-
tity, sexual orientation, religion, and disability). To facilitate interpreta-
tion, we conducted the analyses using the higher-level themes that

TABLE 2 Themes for organizational inclusion policies and practices.

Theme Examples Frequency

There are no policies available
DEI policies and practices
Supporting employee well-being
Providing opportunities for
growth and development
Recognizing employee
contributions
Encouraging employees to share
Encouraging employees to
share views and opinions
Encouraging employees to
share identities
Facilitating interactions among
employees
Influencing employee treatment
Facilitation positive treatment
Prohibiting negative treatment
Being represented in the
workplace
Communicating a shared vision or
shared goals
“To be honest, none. It is a very male dominated industry and very old fashioned so any diversity 12.1%
or inclusion initiatives feel forced and fake. Most do not participate.”
“My company has a strict policy requiring people's gender identities be respected. For evidence 20.5%
that this works, I remember a coworker not getting a promotion because he kept misgendering
trans people.”
“Being valued for the hard work I do and not being overworked to the point of burnout.” 2.3%
“Investment into my own development makes me feel included” 2.3%
“My own workplace is great about celebrating achievements. Service awards are presented after 5.7%
being employed for a set period of time.”
“Open meetings have contributed to making me feel included. People can ask questions and share 12.1%
their views at these meetings, and the people in power listen to their concerns.”
“Some practices and policies in the work place is cultural days where people share something 6.8%
unsure and or beautiful from their culture including religion, LGBT, ethnicity, geographic,
disparities, walks of life, etc. Happens multiple times a year.”
“My work has a ton of meetings and work events to get people together. They are accepting and 17.0%
loving towards me. Just a ton of events that makes me feel included.”
“Our policy of honoring each other in our work and actions contributes to making me feel 10.5%
included in the workplace because it really feels like people care about each other.”
“We have a no tolerant policy for any type of discrimination.” 6.8%
“Seeing other employees with similar backgrounds to mine while also seeing those with different 1.2%
backgrounds.”
“Also, achieving common goals and contributing as a team have made me feel similar.” 1.4%

8 DHANANI ET AL.
emerged for this question rather than the subthemes. Results indi-
cated no significant differences across any social identities, suggesting
that inclusion is defined similarly across subgroups of employees.
3.3 | What practices and behaviors make
employees feel included?
We next addressed Research Questions 2 and 3 by examining the
themes for the items that asked about specific organizational policies as
well as supervisor and coworker behaviors that contributed to partici-
pants' inclusion at work, and what behaviors would increase inclusion
(Tables 2–5). The themes were relatively consistent across these items.
Namely, employees felt included when they were encouraged to share
their views and/or identities; had support for their well-being; received
task support from their coworker/supervisor; were provided with
growth opportunities; received recognition for their work; had opportu-
nities to interact with others, particularly in informal ways; and when
there were actions taken to prohibit negative treatment or facilitate
positive treatment. The most commonly stated themes across the four
questions were opportunities for social interaction, being encouraged
to share one's opinions and/or identities, and facilitation of positive
treatment and prohibition of negative treatment.
To more fully address Research Questions 4 and 5, we addition-
ally conducted subgroup analyses to determine if the specific behav-
iors associated with inclusion differed across subgroups of employees.
We again used chi-square analyses to determine if the themes respon-
dents indicated were independent of their social identities. Analyses
were conducted using the broad themes that emerged. Chi-square
tests indicated significant differences for sex in the organizational pol-
icies themes (χ (13) = 24.09, p = .030; Table 6); for sexual orienta-
2
tion in the coworker behavior themes (χ2 (10) = 23.15, p = .010;
Table 7), and for gender identity in the themes for the question asking
what could improve inclusion (χ2 (15) = 30.57, p = .010; Table 8).
Beginning with the organizational policies themes, the theme of
openly sharing views and identities was more common among women
than men. Further, men were more likely to endorse feeling included
when the organization worked to influence employee treatment. For
coworker behaviors, heterosexual employees more frequently
endorsed the theme of receiving support from coworkers than les-
bian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) employees. Conversely, the themes
related to the open discussion and acceptance of social identities and
receiving recognition were more frequently endorsed by LGB
employees. Finally, transgender and nonbinary employees were more
likely than cisgender employees to state that they felt included when
everyone was treated equally.
3.4 | How does modality relate to feelings of
inclusion?
We next examined the two items that asked respondents about
the relationship between work modality and inclusion, which
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
addressed Research Question 6. The first question asked the
modality in which respondents would feel most included. We
deductively coded responses as virtual/remote, face-to-face, or
hybrid modalities. Results for this item indicated that the majority
of respondents reported they would feel the most included when
working face-to-face (61.2%), followed by working in a virtual or
remote environment (24.4%) and having a hybrid work
arrangement (14.0%). There were additionally three respondents
who reported they had no preference. We conducted a series of
chi-square analyses to assess whether responses differed
as a function of social identities to assess Research Question
7. Results (Table 9) indicated a significant chi-square value for sex (χ2
(3) = 15.76, p = .001), gender identity (χ2 (3) = 11.74, p = .008), race
(χ2 (3) = 17.47, p = .001), religion (χ2 (6) = 14.84, p = .025), sexual
orientation (χ2 (3) = 17.02, p = .001), and disability (χ2 (3) = 13.96,
p = .003). An examination of the observed responses across catego-
ries suggested that employees who are women; transgender, gender-
queer, or nonbinary; racial/ethnic minorities; religious minorities;
and/or disabled were more likely to indicate that they would feel most
included when working remotely compared to their majority-group
counterparts.
The second question about modality asked people to explain how
modality has shaped their feelings of inclusion. A summary of the
themes and example quotes are available in Table 10. The two most
frequently mentioned themes were that working in person made
employees feel more socially connected and working remotely
made employees feel more socially isolated. For example, one respon-
dent wrote, “Being in-person has really made me feel more included,
because I can see my coworkers face-to-face. Seeing them behind a
screen really makes me feel like they're not really my coworkers, just
another random person behind a screen. It also provides more oppor-
tunities to interact with my coworkers, which makes me feel like part
of a team as opposed to just a single worker who's neither seen nor
heard.”
Others noted additional benefits of working either in-person or
remotely. For working in person, some respondents described that it
reduced distractions, such as from other family members being home,
or improved productivity, such as improving coordination among
employees. In contrast, others found that working remotely reduced
distractions or improved productivity by reducing social distractions,
removing their commute, or otherwise giving them more time to
devote to task work. Another theme was that a few respondents
found that working remotely increased their communication with
coworkers by making it more intentional. Moreover, some respon-
dents detailed that they experienced negative interactions when
working in person, such as experiencing discriminatory comments and
working remotely allowed them to avoid people who engaged in dis-
criminatory behavior. One respondent wrote, “I actually like working
remotely so I don't have to deal with all of the racism and misogyny
on a daily basis.”
While many noted a preferred modality, some indicated they felt
equally included across different modalities. Within these responses,
many described that feeling included in a remote environment
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DHANANI ET AL. 9

required more initiative either from the employee or the organization.
One respondent wrote, “At first, it was easy to feel separated from
coworkers and thus feel a little not included, but my workplace has
taken extensive effort to keep staff connected virtually. We've had
special events, casual gatherings, all sorts of things to keep people
feeling recognized, acknowledged and included in this virtual environ-
ment.” Others described that responding to COVID-19 and the
accompanying changes served as a “common enemy” that brought
employees together in a shared experience, which made them feel
more connected to their coworkers than before regardless of the
modality in which they worked.
3.5 | Does preferred modality differ across
subgroups?
To further address Research Question 7, we conducted chi-square
tests to determine if there were subgroup differences in the themes
that emerged when respondents were asked about their feelings of
inclusion across modalities. Results (Table 11) only indicated a signifi-
cant chi-square test for sexual orientation. An inspection of the
observed responses indicated that LGB employees were more likely
than heterosexual employees to feel more included in remote envi-
ronments and less likely to express feeling isolated in remote work

TABLE 3 Themes for supervisors' inclusive behaviors.

Theme Examples Frequency

Supervisor does not engage in
inclusive behavior
Integrating diverse views
Listening to diverse opinions
or viewpoints
Using opinions or viewpoints
in decision making
Recognizing employee
contributions
Providing opportunities for
growth and development
Being willing to talk about DEI
topics
Understanding social identity
differences
Supporting employee well-being
Enforcing or supporting DEI
policies
Facilitating interactions with/
among employees
Treating all employees equally
Influencing employee treatment
Facilitating positive treatment
Prohibiting negative treatment
Communicating a shared vision
or task information
Open, positive communication
Providing task support or
resources
Getting to know employees
personally
“None. I would like them to acknowledge that despite race, religion, cultural, sexual identity, etc. 8.5%
that we are all valued. instead they ignore differences.”
“Being asked to participate in group work, tasks, or projects, asking for my ideas or expertise, 15.5%
entrusting me with responsibility, asking me to weigh in about something I may be familiar with”
“My supervisor asks my opinion when deciding how to handle a problem or task. He trusts my 4.8%
opinion and many times has used the advice I provided. It makes me feel important and like a
member of the family.”
“when you are working at our company our managers and bosses … are always first to let you 9.4%
know when you do good things and when you are doing a great job”
“My direct supervisor is extremely supportive and has given me opportunities for advancement, 7.4%
such as projects to lead, that have made me feel included.”
“My manager also has meetings to address any current political, or social issues that are impacting 1.1%
our lives and our team meetings become an open forum.”
“My direct supervisor … has agreed not to make me travel to any regions where being transgender 1.5%
is criminalized (I am transgender), even tough my position would typically involve travel to these
regions.”
“My leaders in the past have been flexible with work hours, work from home, and encouraged me 6.5%
to take care of my mental health.”
“He makes tough decisions that may not be viewed well in the public, but are very important as far 2.3%
as diversity and inclusion go in the company and its employees.”
“They invite me to go to events outside of work. THis makes me feel like they care about me. This 5.7%
goes deeper than work and we have a relationship.”
“My supervisor does not play favorites and is always fair.” 2.8%
“My leader treats me with the respect and dignity given to teammates who have been at this 6.0%
organization for a decade or more than I have. I am a relatively new hire, and yet my perspective
is appreciated.”
“Having a supervisor that does not discriminate against me for being a minority or a woman.” 1.1%
“My supervisor updating me on changes in the higher up levels of the company that will have 4.1%
trickle down effect have made me feel included in my current workplace. Having a heads up
about how what's expected of me on the job may change is a big help.”
“We talk daily and he is always open to listen to my questions or complaints. I am respected and 10.2%
encouraged to work in my own way.”
“My supervisor always makes sure to ask if I have questions, and provides support when I'm not 7.8%
sure how to complete a task.”
“My supervisor has given me birthday and Christmas gifts. My supervisor has shown an interest in 5.5%
my life outside of work and asks about my family and/or experiences after the weekend or
vacation.”
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 DHANANI ET AL.

TABLE 4 Themes for coworkers' inclusive behaviors.

Theme Examples Frequency

Coworkers do not engage in
inclusive behavior
Receiving help or support
Open communication
Openly sharing ideas and
opinions
Openly sharing emotions
Sharing social identities
Discussing social identities
Accepting social identities
Creating a sense of
community
Being included in social
events
Being included in work
activities
Receiving recognition and
validation
Influencing employee treatment
Facilitating positive
treatment
Prohibiting negative
treatment
“Nothing. My coworkers are bigots.” 3.6%
“They are always willing to help.” 17.6%
“When we have meetings, people discuss how they feel openly.” 9.0%
“Helping each other when there is nowhere else to turn. Providing a safe space to vent and feel 1.2%
heard.”
“They share about their cultures and backgrounds and help me understand where they come from. It 3.8%
makes me feel included because they trust me to learn about their culture.”
“I'm nonbinary and came out at my workplace in February. Everyone was so supportive and 4.2%
immediately started using my new name & pronouns and would correct one another when they
messed up.”
“I have a small team that is very close knit, so I feel very included in my workplace. The community 5.5%
aspect of my team makes me feel included in my work.”
“We have 2 social meals at work on a weekly basis with 1 breakfast and 1 lunch paid for each week. 30.1%
This gives us the excuse to be with each other and try to talk personal and not work related. We
also have 1 planned social gathering outside of the work for either nights or a weekend day per
month also paid for by the company.”
“My coworkers occasionally check in. They forward important emails or things that I need to know. 7.1%
They also may fill me in on what is going on with someone else in the department if I have not
talked to that person.”
“They have frequently said they love working with me!” 4.8%
“Coworkers have also used correct pronouns when talking about me and others. Someone has also 8.5%
said something when a racist remark was said which was really cool. I didn't expect them to do
that.”
“My co-workers show no animosity towards those that are different than them. They don't show any 3.1%
superiority as if they are above and everyone is lower than trash.”

environments. They were also more likely to indicate that working
remotely reduced unwanted or negative interactions. This suggests
that working remotely may be preferred by LGB employees because it
frees them of negative interpersonal interactions or interactions that
require identity management.
4 | DISCUSSION
Using qualitative data collected from a demographically diverse sample,
we sought to understand how employees define workplace inclusion,
the specific behaviors that engender feelings of inclusion, and the
modalities in which employees feel most included. Most importantly,
we were also interested in whether definitions and experiences of
inclusion differed as a function of several social identities. Results sug-
gest that employees primarily define workplace inclusion as equal treat-
ment and open acceptance of all employees regardless of their
identities; the incorporation of diverse viewpoints in decision-making;
and the ability to openly express identities without being pressured to
assimilate. Additionally, how employees construct definitions of
inclusion did not appear to differ as a function of various social identi-
ties. Employees further indicated they felt included when they had
opportunities to interact with others at work, particularly in informal
ways; they could freely share their opinions and identities; and when
they were protected from discrimination or other negative treatment,
among other behaviors. The specific behaviors that fostered feelings of
inclusion showed some variation across social identities, suggesting that
organizations may need to emphasize different practices to resolve feel-
ings of exclusion among subgroups of employees. Finally, most
employees indicated they would feel most included when working in
person. However, employees with minoritized social identities were
more likely to prefer remote environments than their counterparts. We
discuss the implications of these findings in the following sections.
4.1 | Theoretical implications
Organizational scholars can utilize the current study's findings to
inform future theoretical and conceptual developments surrounding
workplace inclusion. First, as previously discussed, scholars have
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DHANANI ET AL. 11

TABLE 5 Themes for behaviors that could improve inclusion.

Theme Examples Frequency

No suggestions; already feel
included
Facilitate more social events and
interactions
Increase efforts to support well-
being
Integrating diverse views
Listening to diverse opinions or
viewpoints
Using opinions or viewpoints in
decision making
Communicate more openly
Increase pay and resources
Increase diversity
Share critical task information
Take actions to redress
discrimination
Provide opportunities for growth
and development
Give constructive performance
feedback and recognition
Acknowledge social identity
differences among employees
Influence employee treatment
Remove negative treatment
Improve positive treatment
Get to know employees personally
“Nothing. They already do what is needed for me. I appreciate everything and everyone.” 28.4%
“I would feel a better sense of belonging if I was invited to do fun activities like holiday related 14.1%
items.”
“I feel like the workday is soo busy and overwhelming that they should keep reiterating the 3.7%
importance of stepping away from our desks throughout the week to get a mental break. I
would hope that they recognize when a person is overwhelmed and step in to assist or help
find them assistance when needed.”
“Ask my opinions on things more rather than just expect everyone to constantly offer it 8.7%
themselves. Sometimes asking for alternate opinions is good.”
“I think I could have more say in decision making. I have some say in the decision we make, but I 3.5%
feel I could have even more. I want to feel like my opinion hold weight and can affect things.”
“We should also have frequent open discussions about diversity in order to bring us closer 3.5%
together.”
“It's more monetary than anything, but the fact they won't give us raises (3 years running) due to 3.5%
COVID reasons, shows that my viewpoints and work are not important for them to retain. By
paying me a good amount, it shows they value my services here.”
“Management is very homogenous (old, cis, straight, white men). They are not very attentive to 7.7%
the needs of diverse communities, and instead are mostly concerns with the interests of other
old white men. It would be great to have a more diverse management.”
“There have been a few work related issues where I felt like I wasnt notified until it was too late. 4.4%
It may have been totally unintentional, but it had the effect of setting me back in my work as I
got pulled to the new project.”
“They should suspend employees for exhibiting hateful behavior towards minorities. I think that 1.9%
would make it very clear that such a hostile environment will not be tolerated.”
“Make sure there is a concrete plan for job advancement and opportunities. Take time to learn 4.4%
more about personal goals outside of professional goals”
“I would feel more included if my leader recognized that I had a unique skill set to offer” 4.1%
“Highlight holidays and observances specific to my cultural background. Not every minor holiday 3.1%
needs to be directly addressed in a formal matter, but some manner of acknowledgment
would be greatly appreciated.”
“The organization could also better recognize people with disabilities as sometimes it feels as 4.8%
though they are overlooked. The organization could also identify senior members who are, at
times, drowned out by younger members.”
“I wish he treated me equally and didn't discriminate against me based on my younger age. Him 1.0%
being much older and as well as all the other managers being much older than me, I wish he
made me a feel more a part of the team and that I was on their level as well.”
“Try to make an effort to get to know me and my interests. No matter how much I talk to 1.7%
people, I always feel excluded.”

offered varied definitions of workplace inclusion and have seldom
considered the unique ways in which employees with different social
identities may view and define workplace inclusion. Correspondingly,
one of the primary aims of our study was to understand the extent to
which employee-held definitions of workplace inclusion replicate
common conceptualizations used in the literature. Toward this aim,
we created an integrated definition of workplace inclusion and the
central components of inclusion based on our findings. We did so by
compiling the themes for Questions 1–5 (see Tables 1–5), removing
redundant codes, combining themes with similar meanings, and
synthesizing the remaining unique codes. The resulting definition of
workplace inclusion is the degree to which employees perceive that
they are valued members of the organization who are accepted and
integrated into the formal and informal structures of the workplace,
able to express themselves authentically without pressure to assimi-
late, and protected from negative treatment. The most central compo-
nents of inclusion were being treated equally; being able to
authentically express one's identity; having open, positive communica-
tion at work; being integrated into decision-making processes and
social networks; feeling psychologically safe and comfortable; being
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 DHANANI ET AL.

TABLE 6 Organizational policies themes by participant sex.

Men Women

Theme Observed Expected Observed Expected

There are no policies available 20 23.3 39 35.7
DEI policies and practices 45 43.4 65 66.6
Supporting employee well-being 4 4.7 8 7.3
Providing opportunities for growth and development 2 3.5 7 5.5
Recognizing employee contributions 10 10.6 17 16.4
Encouraging employees to share 22 26.4 45 40.6
Facilitating interactions among employees 32 34.3 55 52.7
Influencing employee treatment 42 30.0 34 46.0
Being represented in the workplace 3 2.4 3 3.6
A detailed onboarding process 3 2.0 2 3.0
Communicating a shared vision or shared goals 4 2.0 1 3.0

T A B L E 7 Coworker behavior themes

Heterosexual LGBP
by participant sexual orientation.
Theme Observed Expected Observed Expected
Coworkers do not engage in inclusive behavior 14 11.5 7 9.5
Receiving help or support 64 54.3 35 44.7
Open communication 32 30.7 24 25.3
Sharing social identities 9 15.9 20 13.1
Creating a sense of community 13 15.4 15 12.6
Being included in social events 92 95.4 82 78.6
Being included in work activities 21 20.3 16 16.7
Receiving recognition and validation 7 13.7 18 11.3
Influencing employee treatment 38 32.9 22 27.1

TABLE 8 Behaviors that could improve inclusion themes by participant gender identity.

Cisgender Transgender/nonbinary

Theme Observed Expected Observed Expected

No suggestions; already feel included 129 124.3 8 12.7
Facilitate more social events and interactions 62 61.7 6 6.3
Increase efforts to support well-being 18 16.3 0 1.7
Integrate diverse views 43 41.7 3 4.3
Communicate more openly 13 11.8 0 1.2
Increase or equally distribute pay and resources 14 13.6 1 1.4
Increase diversity 30 31.8 5 3.2
Share critical task information 16 16.3 2 1.7
Take actions to redress discrimination 6 8.2 3 .8
Provide opportunities for growth and development 17 16.3 1 1.7
Give constructive performance feedback and recognition 20 19.1 1 1.9
Acknowledge social identity differences among employees 13 14.5 3 1.5
Influence employee treatment 18 23.6 8 2.4
Get to know employees personally 6 6.4 1 .6
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DHANANI ET AL. 13

T A B L E 9 Modality preferences by
Virtual In-person Hybrid No preference
participants social identities.
Men 66 (88.8) 240 (223.7) 60 (52.3) 0 (1.2)
Women 153 (130.2) 312 (328.3) 69 (76.7) 3 (1.8)
Cisgender 195 (202.9) 504 (506.0) 126 (116.4) 3 (2.7)
Transgender or nonbinary 30 (22.1) 57 (55.0) 3 (12.6) 0 (0.3)
Heterosexual 120 (122.8) 288 (306.2) 90 (70.4) 3 (1.6)
LGBP 105 (102.2) 273 (254.8) 39 (58.6) 0 (1.4)
White 90 (112.4) 291 (268.9) 72 (70.1) 0 (1.6)
Racial/ethnic minority 117 (94.6) 204 (226.1) 57 (58.9) 3 (1.4)
Has a disability 81 (60.3) 132 (150.3) 33 (34.6) 0 (0.8)
No disability 144 (164.7) 429 (410.7) 96 (94.4) 3 (2.2)
Christian 54 (67.4) 189 (171.8) 33 (38.9) 3 (0.9)
Other faith 15 (13.0) 30 (33.2) 9 (7.5) 0 (0.2)
Nonreligious 144 (132.6) 324 (338.0) 81 (76.6) 0 (1.9)

Note: Expected values are reported in parentheses.

valued for one's work and being given opportunities for growth;
receiving support for one's task work and well-being; and having a
bond with other employees.
An examination of this employee-generated definition suggests
that employees' views of workplace inclusion both support and extend
earlier definitions of inclusion. As previously noted, one of the concep-
tualizations of inclusion that has gained the most traction is Shore
et al.'s (2011) framework which draws on optimal distinctiveness theory
to define inclusion as being treated in a way that simultaneously sat-
isfies employees' competing needs of belongingness and uniqueness.
Our themes reflect this central tension between the opposing needs to
fit in and be embraced for one's differences. Indeed, participants
emphasized that they felt most included when they were integrated
into the workgroup but could also openly express their differences. Our
integrated definition is also closely aligned with Shore et al.'s (2018)
model of inclusion in which they identified the facets of inclusion to be
psychological safety, workgroup involvement, feeling respected/valued,
influence on decision-making, authenticity, and honoring diversity.
However, our themes also illustrate the importance of supporting
employee well-being, getting to know them personally, and viewing
them as more than just an employee, which are dimensions not empha-
sized in these previous conceptualizations.
Moreover, our definition also comports with the components of
inclusion climate posited by Nishii (2013). Nishii identified three central
components of an inclusive climate: (1) fairly implemented employment
practices, (2) the integration of differences, and (3) inclusion in decision-
making. Each of these corresponds to themes that were among the
most common in our respondents' definitions. However, there were
also important themes that were not captured in Nishii's conceptualiza-
tion. In particular, psychological safety was among the most common
ways our respondents defined workplace inclusion, but this component
is absent from Nishii's conceptualization. Finally, many definitions of
workplace inclusion focus on the ability of all organizational
members to participate fully in work-related tasks (e.g., Miller, 1998;
Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998; Morganson et al., 2010; Roberson, 2006).
Though our respondents emphasized this (see Theme 2), the primary
focus of their definitions was on the interpersonal context and/or phe-
nomenological experience of being at work. We thus argue that a com-
prehensive definition of workplace inclusion must also reflect the
psychological components of inclusion.
Second, we examined the specific organizational practices/
policies and coworker and supervisor behaviors that led to feelings of
inclusion. Prior work has emphasized the importance of incorporating
marginalized employees in decision-making, team-building activities,
information sharing, and equitable treatment into their conceptualiza-
tions of inclusive organizational behaviors (Roberson, 2006;
Sabharwal, 2014; Tang et al., 2015). Themes from the current study
bolster support for the centrality of these practices as each was iden-
tified as making employees feel more included. However, our findings
also yield novel behaviors not highlighted in extant work. For example,
employees in our study felt included when they received support for
their general well-being, a shared organizational vision/goal was com-
municated, supervisors got to know them personally, and coworkers
engaged in allyship. Models of inclusive behavior can thus benefit
from incorporating these employee-identified themes and explicating
how they align with current theoretical understandings of inclusion.
Finally, the current study also considered whether employees
defined workplace inclusion or identified different practices and/or
behaviors associated with inclusion as a function of their social identi-
ties. Examining potential subgroup differences in views of workplace
inclusion is critical for informing organizational practice because it
allows us to identify whether a one-size-fits-all approach to inclusion
is sufficient or whether organizations need to tailor approaches to
specific employee populations. Doing so is also consistent with extant
conceptual frameworks of workplace inclusion (Jansen et al., 2014;
Randel, 2023). Results for the definition of inclusion suggest no sub-
group differences, indicating that people hold similar views of the
meaning of inclusion regardless of their social identities. However,
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 DHANANI ET AL.

TABLE 10 Themes for preferred modalities for inclusion.

Theme Examples Frequency

Working in person makes people feel
more connected to others
Working in person improves productivity
or reduces distractions
Working remotely makes people feel
more included
Working remotely makes people feel
isolated
Working remotely improves productivity
or reduces distractions
Working remotely helps people avoid
negative interactions or conflict
Working remotely increased
communication
Working remotely makes people care
less about being included
Hybrid work makes people feel more
included
Feelings of inclusion are similar across
modalities
Feelings of inclusion depend on other
employees' modalities
Feelings of inclusion would increase if
given more control over modality
“I think being present in the workplace has definitely allowed a better sense of inclusion” 24.5%
“I would prefer to work in an office, more because the rest of my family also being home 1.8%
causes distraction.”
“I absolutely love working from home … We've all been able to connect with each other 6.3%
more and get closer as people through working from home because in our meetings we
can see each other's living rooms, we can see each other's pets all the time, we really got
a sense of each other as people who exist in the world rather than just coworkers, and
being able to identify your coworker as a real human being with a real life helps you get
closer and develop a sense of belonging.”
“I feel even less apart of the group, working remotely. Feels like I'm on an island at times, 27.8%
until someone comes chasing a ticket for an update.”
“Working remotely at times I can concentrate better. While I'm in the workplace at times 3.3%
the employees joke around too much on the job. When I'm working away from other
employees I don't have people to talk too so I perform better.”
“I feel better because i am in the comfort of my own home. I do not have to code-switch 5.6%
for 8+ hours a day. I just do it when i am on a call and then can be myself once i drop a
call.”
“It is harder to casually encounter coworkers and get to know them bit by bit. At the same 2.0%
time, I have found the most people are more accessible since no one has to leave their
physical space to attend a virtual meeting. When I am willing to be direct and intentional,
the virtual modality makes work much easier.”
“Since working remotely I have cared less about feeling included in the workplace. I don't 1.8%
go into the office so I feel more independent and really just focus more on my work and
less on relationships with coworkers.”
“I work hybrid so I am in office 2/5 days of the work week. I like that we still come into 2.8%
office so we get that in person contact but it's also nice to get to work from home and
knowing they trust us to complete everything remotely”
“It has not changed. The team is just as interactive working remotely, but were just missing 17.2%
the face to face interaction. Other than that we still meet regularly virtually and talk
daily.”
“Being present at work makes me sometimes jealous of others who get the opportunity to 4.0%
work from home.”
“My company has always been against working from home. Only did it when it was 3.1%
required. The idea they have of wanting everyone to be in office so they can physically
see people there working, has made it feel more like we are not cared about, and thay
management only cares about their gains and profits.”

there were differences in the specific practices and behaviors that led
to feelings of inclusion. More specifically, women were more likely
than men to emphasize that they felt included when they were able
to share their views and identities openly; LGB employees were simi-
larly more likely to emphasize that they felt included when their iden-
tities could be openly expressed and accepted than heterosexual
employees; and transgender and nonbinary employees were more
likely than cisgender employees to emphasize that they felt included
when all employees were treated equally. Furthermore, respondents
emphasized specific practices that were tailored to individual demo-
graphic groups (e.g., creating opportunities to learn employees' pro-
nouns) as being integral to their feelings of inclusion, again
underscoring the need for organizations to send signals that are
matched to the unique needs and experiences of minoritized
employees. These findings suggest that future conceptual and
empirical work on inclusion should incorporate considerations of how
social identities may shape the cues and experiences employees look
to when determining their feelings of inclusion.
4.2 | Practical implications
Findings from the current study can also help guide organizations
seeking to foster feelings of inclusion among their employees. First,
the current study illuminates actionable steps organizations can take
to capitalize on the benefits of workplace inclusion. That is, the
themes that emerged from the inductive coding yield insights into
the specific organizational behaviors and practices that most align
with employees' views and feelings of inclusion. Many participants
indicated that formal policies directed toward prohibiting
 10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DHANANI ET AL. 15

TABLE 11 Modality themes by participant sexual orientation.

Heterosexual LGBP

Theme Observed Expected Observed Expected

Working in person increases connectivity 51 53.0 45 43.0
Working in person reduces distractions 4 3.9 3 3.1
Working remotely is more inclusive 9 13.8 16 11.2
Remote work increases isolation 66 60.7 44 49.3
Remote work improves productivity 5 7.2 8 5.8
Remote work reduces negative interactions 7 12.1 15 9.9
Remote work decreases concerns of inclusion 4 3.9 3 3.1
Remote work increased communication 4 4.4 4 3.6
Hybrid work is more inclusion 7 6.1 4 4.9
All modalities are equal 49 37.5 19 30.5
Inclusion would increase with more control 5 6.7 7 6.3
Feelings of inclusion depend on others' modalities 7 8.8 9 7.2

discrimination or mandating positive treatment, and the enforcement
of such policies, were critical for feeling included. Participants further
reported that they felt included when the organization devoted effort
toward facilitating interactions among employees (e.g., team-building
activities, social events, collaborative meetings), they received support
from coworkers, and they were asked to provide input into decisions.
Being able to share one's culture, identity, and life experiences was
also commonly emphasized; for example, participants felt included
when organizations celebrated religious or cultural holidays outside of
the dominant culture or held open meetings during which cultural
backgrounds were shared. Finally, employees also felt most included
when their organizations, supervisors, and/or coworkers demon-
strated a concern for their well-being and viewed them as more than
just an employee. This underscores the need to take a holistic
approach to supporting employees and ensuring that employees
receive more than just task-related support.
Notably, definitions of workplace inclusion did not differ across sub-
groups of employees, and the behaviors most associated with inclusion
were relatively similar across employees. These results suggest that orga-
nizations can generally adopt a uniform set of practices that will likely
produce feelings of inclusion for all employees without substantial fear of
backlash or feelings of alienation among other employees. However, the
ability to openly share views and identities may be particularly important
for some minoritized groups, as women were more likely than men, and
LGB employees were more likely than heterosexual employees, to indi-
cate that openly sharing views and identities made them feel included.
Organizations should ensure they create opportunities for and resolve
unique barriers that may inhibit, these forms of sharing to maximize feel-
ings of inclusion for women and LGB employees.
Moreover, results from the current study can guide decisions
about work modalities as organizations continue to navigate the
changing nature of work. A majority of our respondents indicated they
would feel most included at work when physically working in the
office in large part because it helps facilitate interactions among
employees. This suggests that organizations adopting long-term
remote work policies need to consider the potential tradeoffs for
inclusion. However, this finding is also qualified by results indicating
that women, transgender or nonbinary employees, racial/ethnic
minorities, employees with disabilities, and religious minorities were
more likely than their counterparts to feel more included in remote
environments. The qualitative themes suggest that remote environ-
ments reduce the pressure to modify or suppress one's identities at
work and reduce negative interactions in which employees experience
discrimination and rejection. Organizations should consider the unique
needs of employees belonging to minoritized populations when
selecting modality policies as a failure to do so may create or exacer-
bate inequities among employees. Organizations might also consider
negotiating idiosyncratic deals (i.e., i-deals) in which personalized work
arrangements are reached to satisfy individual employee needs (Liao
et al., 2016). However, allowing employees to work remotely or to
enter into i-deals should not take the place of efforts to create envi-
ronments in which employees can comfortably work in person.
Finally, the current study provides practical guidance for organiza-
tions that want to implement remote work policies but are concerned
about the resulting isolation employees might experience. Respon-
dents noted several practices their organizations engaged in to
increase feelings of inclusion while working remotely. Many respon-
dents cited that regular check-ins, informal chats about non-work
topics, and virtual social events, such as virtual happy hours, increased
their feelings of inclusion while working remotely. Organizations can
look to these responses to keep their employees feeling included,
even when working at a distance.
4.3 | Limitations and future research
Although the current paper advances our understanding of workplace
inclusion, its contributions should be considered alongside its

16
limitations. First, despite our efforts to assess employees' internally
held definitions of workplace inclusion, it is possible that external
sources influenced responses to our open-ended questions. For exam-
ple, employees may have participated in organizational diversity or
inclusion training or may have been exposed to other messaging
about workplace inclusion. If true, this may have constrained partici-
pants' definitions by limiting employees' views of workplace inclusion.
Future studies should seek to identify the degree to which employees
are exposed to and influenced by messages about workplace inclusion
and whether that affects their own experiences of inclusion.
Second, the primary purpose of this study was to determine if the
definition of inclusion and specific practices that lead to feelings of
inclusion differed across subgroups of employees with different
demographic identities. We examined this within a relatively diverse
sample, but other social identities (e.g., age) or factors (e.g., tenure,
rank) may also influence perceptions of inclusion that were not cap-
tured here. Relatedly, there has been an increased focus on intersec-
tionality, or how multiple social identities converge to influence
people's lived experiences (Liu et al., 2019). This would argue that
people with specific intersections of social identities may face unique
forms of discrimination or barriers to inclusion in the workplace
(e.g., Black women may experience different forms of exclusion than
Black men). Unfortunately, we could not examine this possibility and
encourage subsequent work to consider an intersectional approach to
understanding inclusive workplace experiences.
Moreover, given that some of the themes that emerged from our
qualitative analysis reflect broad, positive organizational behaviors
(e.g., supervisors demonstrating care for employees' general well-being),
subsequent research should seek to identify whether these behaviors
are best conceptualized as part of an inclusive practices bundle or if
they simply generate positive views of the organization. Research is
needed to clarify any potential construct overlap between inclusive
practices and other forms of positive workplace behaviors that may not
have the specific intention of facilitating inclusion. Finally, future studies
would benefit from examining the specific practices that make
employees feel excluded. The focus of the current paper was to identify
practices that resulted in positive feelings of inclusion. However, it
would be similarly informative to understand what practices engender
feelings of exclusion to help organizations identify what to avoid. More-
over, future studies should more closely examine employees' negative
feelings toward workplace inclusion and how to reduce or overcome
such feelings. Though relatively uncommon, some respondents did
express views that inclusion was detrimental, unfair toward majority
group members, or produced an unqualified workforce, all of which
might undermine efforts to foster inclusion. Future research should
identify communication strategies that better emphasize that inclusion
is intended to benefit all employees to surmount potential opposition.
5 | C O N CL U S I O N
Workplace inclusion can transform workplaces into environments
where all employees can thrive regardless of their identities. However,
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DHANANI ET AL.
to capitalize on this potential, we must understand how employees
view and define their own feelings of inclusion to identify how organi-
zations, and the people within them, can best foster inclusive environ-
ments. Toward that aim, the current study used qualitative data to
inductively examine how employees themselves define workplace
inclusion and the organizational behaviors and practices that most
successfully engender feelings of inclusion. We also aimed to under-
stand how views and experiences of inclusion might differ as a func-
tion of employee social identities and across work modalities. We find
that definitions of inclusion were similar across employees with vari-
ous social identities, but the importance of specific practices and
behaviors differed. We additionally show that feelings of inclusion
substantively differ across work modalities and that social identities
shape the modality in which people feel most included. These findings
provide insight that can be used in the future theoretical and practical
development of inclusive organizational practices.
ACKNOWLEDG MENTS
None.
CONFLIC T OF INTER E ST STATEMENT
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
All data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
OR CID
Lindsay Y. Dhanani https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4701-4640
RE FE RE NCE S
Andel, S. A., Shen, W., & Arvan, M. L. (2021). Depending on your own
kindness: The moderating role of self-compassion on the within-
person consequences of work loneliness during the COVID-19 pan-
demic. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(4), 276–290.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000271
Anderson, A. J., Kaplan, S. A., & Vega, R. P. (2015). The impact of telework
on emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework
improve daily affective well-being? European Journal of Work and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 24, 882–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1359432X.2014.966086
Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-
size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of
social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 547–
566. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000071
Bentley, T. A., Teo, S. T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016).
The role of organisational support in teleworker well-being: A socio-
technical systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207–215. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.019
Brimhall, K. C., Mor Barak, M. E., Hurlburt, M., McArdle, J. J., Palinkas, L., &
Henwood, B. (2017). Increasing workplace inclusion: The promise of
leader-member exchange. Human Service Organizations: Management,
Leadership & Governance, 41(3), 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23303131.2016.1251522
Brooks, K. J. (2021). Why many Black employees don't want to return to the
office. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-workers-
return-to-office-future-forum-workplace/

DHANANI ET AL.
Brynjolfsson, E., Horton, J. J., Ozimek, A., Rock, D., Sharma, G., &
TuYe, H. Y. (2020). COVID-19 and remote work: An early look at US data
(no. w27344). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Labor force characteristics by race and
ethnicity, 2020. United States Department of Labor. https://www.bls.
gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/2020/home.htm
Chung, B. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Dean, M. A., &
Kedharnath, U. (2020). Work group inclusion: Test of a scale and
model. Group & Organization Management, 45(1), 75–102. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1059601119839858
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/
10.1177/001316446002000104
Colquitt, J. A., Long, D. M., Rodell, J. B., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K.
(2015). Adding the “in” to justice: A qualitative and quantitative inves-
tigation of the differential effects of justice rule adherence and viola-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 278–297. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0038131
De Cooman, R., Vantilborgh, T., Bal, M., & Lub, X. (2016). Creating inclu-
sive teams through perceptions of supplementary and complementary
person-team fit: Examining the relationship between person-team fit
and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 41, 310–
342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115586910
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of
diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667087
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the
unknown about telecommuting: A meta-analysis of the psychological
mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 1524–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding
conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 15, 615–632.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872
Holmes, O. IV, Jiang, K., Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., Oh, I. S., & Tillman, C. J.
(2021). A meta-analysis integrating 25 years of diversity climate
research. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1357–1382. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0149206320934547
Janin, A. (2022). Some minority workers, tired of workplace slights, say they pre-
fer working remote. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/
minority-workers-prefer-remote-microaggresions-11652452865
Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., van der Zee, K. I., & Jans, L. (2014). Inclusion: Con-
ceptualization and measurement. European Journal of Social Psychology,
44, 370–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2011
Jehanzeb, K., & Bashir, N. A. (2013). Training and development program
and its benefits to employee and organization: A conceptual study.
European Journal of Business and Management, 5(2), 243–252.
Kiradoo, G. (2022). Diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace: Strat-
egies for achieving and sustaining a diverse workforce. Advance
Research in Social Science and Management, Edition, 1, 139–151.
Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P.,
Bakker, A. B., Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K.,
Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L.,
Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S. Y., … Vugt, M. v. (2021).
COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for
future research and action. American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
Kuznetsova, Y., & Bento, J. P. C. (2018). Workplace adaptations promoting
the inclusion of persons with disabilities in mainstream employment: A
case-study on employers' responses in Norway. Social Inclusion, 6, 34–
45. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v6i2.1332
Liao, C., Wayne, S. J., & Rousseau, D. M. (2016). Idiosyncratic deals in con-
temporary organizations: A qualitative and meta-analytical review.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S9–S29. https://doi.org/10.
1002/job.1959
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
17
Liu, J. (2021). For some LGBTQ employees, remote work is a ‘game changer’
for inclusion. CNBC. Available from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/
22/remote-work-can-be-more-equitable-and-inclusive-to-lgbtq-emplo
yees.html
Liu, X., Park, J., Hymer, C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2019). Multidimensional-
ity: A cross-disciplinary review and integration. Journal of Management,
45, 197–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318807285
Malhotra, A. (2021). The postpandemic future of work. Journal of Manage-
ment, 47(5), 1091–1102. https://doi.org/10.1177/
01492063211000435
Miller, F. A. (1998). Strategic culture change: The door to achieving high
performance and inclusion. Public Personnel Management, 27, 151–
160. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609802700203
Miller, K. L. (2021). Microaggressions at the office can make remote work
even more appealing. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://
www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/13/workplace-microag
gressions-remote-workers/
Mor Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. (1998). A tool to expand organizational
understanding of workforce diversity. Administrative in Social Work, 22,
47–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v22n01_04
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 manage-
ment for climate of inclusion: A state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis.
Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(4),
305–333.
Morganson, V. J., Major, D. A., Oborn, K. L., Verive, J. M., & Heelan, M. P.
(2010). Comparing telework locations and traditional work arrange-
ments: Differences in work-life balance support, job satisfaction, and
inclusion. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 578–595. https://doi.
org/10.1108/02683941011056941
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
Pearce, J. L., & Randel, A. E. (2004). Expectations of organizational mobil-
ity, workplace social inclusion, and employee job performance. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 25, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.232
Putra, K. C., Pratama, T. A., Linggautama, R. A., & Prasetyaningtyas, S. W.
(2020). The impact of flexible working hours, remote working, and
work life balance to employee satisfaction in banking industry during
COVID-19 pandemic period. Journal of Business and Management
Review, 1, 341–353.
Randel, A. E. (2023). Inclusion in the workplace: A review and research
agenda. Group & Organization Management, 0, 1–44. https://doi.org/
10.1177/10596011231175578
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G.,
Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing
positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for
uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28, 190–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclu-
sion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31, 212–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273064
Roberson, Q. M., Ruggs, E. N., Pichler, S., & Holmes, O. IV (2023). LGBTQ
systems: A framework and future research agenda. Journal of
Management.
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational
inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2),
197–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202
Scarborough, W. J., Lambouths, D. L. III, & Holbrook, A. L. (2019). Support
of workplace diversity policies: The role of race, gender, and beliefs
about inequality. Social Science Research, 79, 194–210. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.01.002
Schur, L. A., Ameri, M., & Kruse, D. (2020). Telework after COVID: A
“silver lining” for workers with disabilities? Journal of Occupational

18
Rehabilitation, 30, 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-
09936-5
Shockley, K. M., Allen, T. D., Dodd, H., & Waiwood, A. M. (2021). Remote
worker communication during COVID-19: The role of quantity, qual-
ity, and supervisor expectation-setting. Journal of Applied Psychology,
106(10), 1466–1482. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000970
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces:
A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28, 176–
189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe
Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups:
A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37,
1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
Simons, S. M., & Rowland, K. N. (2011). Diversity and its impact on organi-
zational performance: The influence of diversity constructions on
expectations and outcomes. Journal of Technology Management & Inno-
vation, 6(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-
27242011000300013
Tajfel, H. H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of
intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
Tang, N., Jiang, Y., Chen, C., Zhou, Z., Chen, C. C., & Yu, Z. (2015). Inclusion
and inclusion management in the Chinese context: An exploratory
study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6),
856–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.985326
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective
remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design per-
spective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/
apps.12290
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identi-
fication among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and
perceived work-based social support. Journal of Management, 27(2),
213–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700205
Zhang, C., Yu, M. C., & Marin, S. (2021). Exploring public sentiment on
enforced remote work during COVID-19. Journal of Applied Psychology,
106(6), 797–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000933
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
Lindsay Y. Dhanani is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource
Management in the School of Management and Labor Relations at
Rutgers University. Dr. Dhanani's research centers on identifying
the organizational and personal characteristics that give rise to
workplace mistreatment, the intersection between experiencing
and witnessing workplace mistreatment and employee well-being,
and interventions that can help mitigate the occurrence of
10991379, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2779 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [02/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DHANANI ET AL.
mistreatment and/or its associated harms. Dr. Dhanani is particu-
larly interested in forms of workplace mistreatment that target
immutable social identities, such as race/ethnicity, gender identity,
sexual orientation, and religion. Dr. Dhanani's research has been
published in outlets such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Per-
sonnel Psychology, Journal of Management, and Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior. Dr. Dhanani has also received funding from the
National Institute of Occupational Stress and Health, the National
Institutes of Health, and the Society for Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology.
Mohsin Sultan received a PhD in Industrial and Organizational
Psychology from Ohio University. His research interests include
employee well-being, job attitudes, leadership, and turnover.
Carolyn T. Pham is a graduate student in the Industrial-
Organizational Psychology PhD program at DePaul University. Her
research interests lie in workplace mistreatment and racial
discrimination.
Keisuke Mikami is a PhD student in the Department of Psychology
at Ohio University. His research focuses on motivation, training, and
well-being in the workplace.
Daniel Ryan Charles is a doctoral student in Industrial-Organizational
Psychology at DePaul University. His research interests center on
employee identity, mental health, and leadership.
Hannah A. Crandell is a doctoral student in Industrial-Organizational
Psychology at the University of Central Florida. Her research exam-
ines worker well-being, vulnerable populations, and technology in the
workplace. Hannah is a student trainee of the NIOSH Sunshine ERC
Targeted Research Training program at UCF.
How to cite this article: Dhanani, L. Y., Sultan, M., Pham, C. T.,
Mikami, K., Charles, D. R., & Crandell, H. A. (2024). Inclusion
near and far: A qualitative investigation of inclusive
organizational behavior across work modalities and social
identities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.2779