Work Group Inclusion: Test of a Scale and Model

Abstract

We develop a theoretically based 10-item measure of work group inclusion comprised of two components (belongingness and uniqueness) and use this measure to empirically test the nomological network of work group inclusion developed by Shore et al. In Phase 1, we use two samples of full-time employees to develop and refine items as well as establish content validity. In Phase 2, we demonstrate convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity with both conceptually related and unrelated constructs. In Phase 3, we use data from an additional sample of employees and supervisors to test criterion-related validity and mediation by examining the multilevel relationships between inclusion and important antecedents and outcomes. Across the three phases of our study, the results demonstrate support not only for the factor structure, reliability, and validity of our work group inclusion measure but also for a theoretical model in which the construct of inclusion has important implications for individuals and organizations.

Organizational inclusion and identity regulation: How inclusive organizations form ‘Good’, ‘Glorious’ and ‘Grateful’ refugees

“…Conversely, Mor Barak describes minority individuals at non-inclusive workplaces as those who lack being ‘recognized or appreciated for their true identities’ (Mor Barak, 2015: 83) or who must ‘give up their unique identities’ (Mor Barak, 2015: 85). Also Shore and colleagues assert that in inclusive work groups, individuals are ‘authentically themselves’ (Shore et al, 2018: 177), acting as ‘complete selves’ (Chung et al, 2020: 2). In Shore et al’s well-known framework, one of the two inclusion dimensions next to belongingness is the need for uniqueness, defined as ‘the need to maintain a distinctive and differentiated sense of self’ (Shore et al, 2011: 1264).…”

Exclusive Talent Management: Unveiling the Mechanisms of the Construction of an Elite Community

“…Especially in those countries or industries where gender segregation is common, this might be an appropriate measure, not only to raise sensitivity, but also to create a new, more diverse group of talents corresponding better to the diversity of the total workforce. Moreover, going beyond mere diversity management and towards inclusion, for example, ensuring an inclusion climate within an organisation (Nishii, 2013) or on a work group level (Chung et al ., 2020) could lead to greater organisational performance (Brimhall and Mor Barak, 2018), which is the ultimate objective of TM (Sabharwal, 2014). Although theoretical research regarding inclusion within TM is emerging, empirical evidence on the subject remains scarce (for an exception, see Festing et al ., 2015b).…”

Connecting Theory to Practice: Using Self-Determination Theory To Better Understand Inclusion in STEM

“…To address this issue, I/O professionals have developed several inclusion measures focused on each of these levels (63). Here, we highlight two relatively novel scales derived from the SDT framework that assess inclusion: the Work Group Inclusion Scale and the Perceived Group Inclusion Scale (64,65). We chose to highlight these two scales as they have strong psychometric properties and can be adapted to assess inclusion in STEM for student groups and classrooms, the organizational levels that have been the primary focus of student retention interventions in STEM.…”

“…The Work Group Inclusion Scale is a 10-item measure that examines an individual's perceived degree of belonging and uniqueness in their workgroup, as outlined by the SDT and ODT frameworks (64). A sample item is, "I can share a perspective on work issues that is different from my group members" (64). While still new, this scale has been rigorously validated and its factor structure has been verified in the context of faculty and staff of an American university.…”