LP763-L1- week 4

Article

International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 2023, Vol. 23(3) 635–659 © The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/14705958231214623 journals.sagepub.com/home/ccm

Making sense of cultural diversity’s complexity: Addressing an emerging challenge for leadership

Shireen Wei Yuin Chua University of Waikato, New Zealand

Peter YT Sun University of Waikato, New Zealand

Paresha Sinha University of Waikato, New Zealand

Abstract The growing complexity of cultural diversity within organizations’ workforce today requires leadership to find new organizational approaches to diversity management. Today’s workforce are seeking a different management approach where the staff experience inclusion and belonging whilst contributing to the organization’s purpose. The current organizational approaches to diversity management have not been successful in delivering on the promised outcomes (e.g., creativity and innovation) that leadership seeks. Leadership’s role is critical to developing organizational ap- proaches to diversity management. Cultural inclusion offers leadership today’s approach of managing for inclusion. This paper proposes a conceptual framework that looks at leadership’s role in their organization’s diversity management approach. We identify three dimensions in our conceptual framework that influence leadership in their effort’s for effective diversity management: leadership’s accountability for diversity management; leadership’s approach to diversity manage- ment; and leadership’s focus of diversity management. This conceptual framework allows the leadership of organizations to identify their current diversity management approaches by mapping leadership position’s position with the three dimensions to identify leadership’s role in managing their culturally diverse organizations.

Keywords Leadership, cultural inclusion, diversity and inclusion, diversity management, workforce diversity

Corresponding author: Shireen Wei Yuin Chua, Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]

Introduction

Globalization is amplifying cultural diversity and its complexity within every organization. The cultural diversity within the workforce increases in complexity when we consider the interactions between their surface-level characteristics (demographic) and their deep-level (psychological) characteristics (Harrison et al., 2002). In addition, today’s changing societal and cultural expec- tations that is becoming more aware of diversity, require organizational leadership to rethink how they manage their multicultural workforce. Organizations need to balance their need to be sus- tainably competitive whilst ensuring that their culturally diverse workforce experiences greater inclusion and belonging at work. Diversity management also referred to as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or equity diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the literature - is defined as an “or- ganizational approach aiming to achieve better organizational results by creating an inclusive workplace where people’s distinguishing qualities and needs are met in a diversified, effective, efficient and equitable way (Riccò and Guerci, 2014)”. Diversity management continues to be a significant topic of interest today for organizations. Whilst the need for diversity management is not new, the current approaches have not delivered the desired results. Organizational leaders continue to seek answers on how they can manage their diverse organizations today so that there is ongoing creativity and innovation to remain competitive and where staff are highly engaged.

Workforce diversity research has demonstrated that diversity training, diversity management systems, fostering a diversity and inclusion climate, and leadership all contribute to the success of diversity management (Bebbington and Ozbilgin, 2013; Buengeler et al., 2018; Gino and Coffman, 2021; Jin et al., 2017; Vito and Sethi, 2020). Among these factors, leadership was the most significant factor (Boekhorst, 2015; Curtis and Dreachslin, 2008; Ng, 2008; Ng and Wyrick, 2011). This paper goes on to further address how leadership plays a role in their organization’s diversity management approach that considers today’s growing complexity of cultural diversity.

This paper focuses on the executive leadership team, or the top management team (TMT), who have the responsibility to provide the organization’s strategic leadership for its diversity man- agement approaches (Boone and Hendriks, 2009; Martins, 2020). They have the power and in- fluence to determine their organization’s diversity management approach, strategies, design and culture (Martins, 2020; Pless and Maak, 2004). Whilst leadership’s role is vital, there remains limited research that addresses how they manage their diverse workforce in today’s context. Our research seeks to address this gap by examining leadership’s role in managing their culturally diverse workforce.

This paper begins by describing how diversity management has evolved over the decades to identify the shifts before defining cultural diversity and how its growing complexity impacts leadership’s approaches to diversity management. We then look at the extant research and the three leadership factors it indicates that contribute to their organization’s diversity management out- comes. From this, we propose a conceptual framework that addresses leadership’s role in their organization’s cultural diversity management approach. Finally, we discuss the practical impli- cations of the framework before discussing limitations and future research directions.

Organizational diversity management research

Diversity management research at the organizational level is multidisciplinary and remains fragmented. It includes theory and research from cross-cultural management, cross-cultural psy- chology, social sciences, workforce diversity, organizational behaviour and organizational de- velopment for a range of contexts from education, management, health and business. Workforce

636 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

diversity research can be grouped into two views with distinct foci (Ali and Konrad, 2017; Konrad, 2006). The mainstream diversity research view has focussed on human resource management and the business case for diversity (Kossek et al., 2006; Richard et al., 2013). The critical diversity research view has focussed on systemic inequalities and the influence of power to change such systems (Ahonen et al., 2014; Zanoni and Janssens, 2015; Özbilgin et al., 2011). The growing complexity of cultural diversity and today’s changing context see the convergence of both these views as organizations pursue being sustainably competitive whilst managing their culturally diverse workforce without perpetuating systemic inequalities. By considering these two views together, leaders will be better able to design diversity management strategies that are more ap- propriate to today’s diverse and culturally complex environments.

Within organizational diversity management research, a literature review highlighted that there are no straightforward solutions for cultural diversity management and suggested developing a model unique for each organization (Seymen, 2006). Research themes have addressed both views through the impact and influence of specific individual dimensions of diversity in organizations (Shore et al., 2009), systemic challenges of inequality, managing multicultural organizations, organizational culture and systemic change and organizational development approach (Cox, 1994; Konrad, 2006; Shore et al., 2009, 2018; Lauring, 2013; Mor Barak, 2011; Friday and Friday, 2003; Gonzalez, 2010). Compared to research at the team and individual level, research into organi- zational diversity management approaches remains limited and reflects an era when diversity was less complex We now look at what has changed in workforce diversity management research.

What has changed?

When viewed over time, the themes of workforce diversity research have evolved over four distinct eras as the workforce increased in diversity (Canas and Sondak, 2014; Nkomo et al., 2019). These eras shaped the rhetoric of the diversity management approaches. Around the Second World War, the workforce became diverse with the entry of women. The research sought to understand the phenomena of culture and diversity emerging in the workforce. As workforce diversity (particularly in the United States) began to include minorities who sought to have their voices heard during the civil rights movement, the affirmative action era saw equal opportunity practices emerge. As the business became international and large global organizations emerged, the workforce became multicultural, where understanding culture and crossing cultures became key to international management and business success (Cox, 2001; Allen et al., 2004). Today, globalisation has in- creased global mobility through travel and migration, amplifying the cultural diversity in the workforce further. There are as many as five generations at work today. As a result, cultural diversity is present in almost every organization. As cultural diversity increases in complexity, the diversity management approaches will need to adapt to reflect today’s context. Before we look at today’s diversity management approaches, we examine how cultural diversity has become more complex.

Understanding cultural diversity today

Culture is often defined as learned and shared ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving amongst a group of people (Spencer-Oatey, 2007). Cultural diversity, then, relates to differences in the many unique characteristics of individuals who identify themselves in the various social groups they belong to (Hays-Thomas, 2015). Cultural diversity goes beyond the outwardly visible demographic characteristics of gender, race, ethnicity and age to include deep-level psychological characteristics such as personality, attitudes, values, and beliefs (Gotsis and Kortezi, 2015; Harrison et al., 1998,

Chua et al. 637

2002; Phillips and Loyd, 2006). When these hidden dimensions are considered, managing cultural diversity increases in complexity.

This paper employs the surface and deep-level diversity categorization as it allows us to address the nuances and complexity of cultural diversity that are often missed when we only look at the visible diversity characteristics. Other studies have employed this categorization (Harrison et al., 2002; Phillips and Loyd, 2006; Bouncken, 2009; Cunningham and Sagas, 2004; Abu Bakar and McCann, 2018). We now look at how the complexity of cultural diversity is increasing further.

Divergence of surface-level and deep-level diversity

The dynamic nature of cultural diversity increases its complexity (Roberson et al., 2017). Glob- alization has increased this further, resulting in superdiversity–where there is a growing divergence between the surface-level and deep-level characteristics within individual identities (Vertovec, 2007). For example, migrants in the global workforce may eventually adopt some of the cultural values and worldviews of where they presently reside, known as the process of acculturation (Berry, 2005, 2008). While they may have physical (visible) features associated with a country they no longer live, these migrants may also have adopted values and beliefs from the country they now live in. For example, the diaspora Chinese may be visibly Chinese, but their values, beliefs, and worldviews may not fully reflect the Chinese culture of mainland China. Similarly, expatriate workers and international students will adopt some values and perspectives from their time abroad. Also within the workforce are a growing number of individuals with mixed ethnic heritage who have a multicultural identity. These add a challenge to how organizations manage their culturally diverse workforce (Pekerti and Thomas, 2016; Pekerti, 2019).

Intersectionality

Intersectionality also adds to the increasingly complex tapestry of cultural diversity. It describes the influence and impact of a combination of diversity characteristics (Crenshaw, 1991). Inter- sectionality research initially sought to highlight the increased systemic discrimination that African American women faced in the workplace based on their gender and race. However, it is now used to refer more broadly to the influence of combinations of cultural diversity characteristics in the context of systems and power structures (Cho et al., 2013; Rodriguez et al., 2016). Intersectionality suggests that managing cultural diversity that focuses on singular surface-level characteristic may result in individuals being stereotyped rather than being viewed as multidimensional cultural beings (Rodriguez et al., 2016). Culture categories are subjective, so people may base their social identity on many different cultural characteristics (Harrison and Sin, 2006; Mazur, 2010) that can also be sub-categorized further (Gardenswartz et al., 2010; Rijamampianina and Carmichael, 2005; Roccas and Brewer, 2002; Tajfel, 1982). How, and with which characteristics, individuals choose to define their identity can vary between individuals and in different contexts (Köllen, 2021). The way different individuals prioritize various cultural diversity characteristics as their identity highlights how multi-dimensional individuals are and represent a challenge in how leadership manages such cultural diversity in their organizations (Zolfaghari et al., 2016).

Today’s context

The increasing complexity of cultural diversity requires leadership to manage their increasingly diverse workforce that considers the diverging deep-level diversity and intersectionality. It will

638 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

require leadership to develop intercultural organizational approaches to managing their diverse workforce, where there is mutual understanding and benefits for everyone.

In addition, societal and cultural influences today are shaping employees’ expectations of their places of work. With the growing shortage of workforce and the emergence of social movements such as Black Lives Matter, leadership is expected to pursue inclusion and belonging. As the younger globally and ethnically diverse generation become part of the workforce, their different values and expectations clash. Furthermore, the growing workforce shortage has resulted in employees having greater choices about where and with whom they work, thus increasing the need for leadership to ensure that their organizations are attractive workplaces. These factors require leadership to consider adapting their diversity management approaches that balance the organi- zation’s outcomes with those of employees seeking greater inclusion and belonging.

Emerging themes of organizational inclusion, belonging, cultural inclusion and inclusion cli- mates in workforce diversity research suggest a different approach to managing a culturally diverse workforce (Bryer, 2020; Edmondson and Mogelof, 2006; Ferdman, 2017; Holmes IV et al., 2021; Kuknor and Bhattacharya, 2021b). Such research themes signal a shift from the previous era’s approach of managing diversity to managing for inclusion (Kuknor and Bhattacharya, 2021a, 2021b). Whilst the theory has emerged, the practice of organizational diversity management ap- proaches in today’s organizations has yet to catch up.

As managing for inclusion and developing organizational inclusion theory emerges, further research is needed to address how leadership can practically manage for inclusion. Leadership’s role becomes critical in managing their organizational approach as it will require strategic leadership to embed the development of organizational cultures, inclusive systems and processes that deliver outcomes for the business and employees (Pless and Maak, 2004; Feitosa et al., 2022; Martins, 2020).

Leadership and diversity management

The leadership literature has been relatively silent about the relationship between leadership and their organization’s diversity management approach. In previous workforce diversity eras, man- aging diversity was simpler and less complex, mainly focusing on surface-level characteristics. The focus was on increasing the visible demographic diversity in their organizations and where em- ployees are considered as a resource to serve the organization’s purpose. It did not require strategic leadership to manage its diverse workforce.

However, as the complexity of cultural diversity increases, diversity management requires a systemic and organizational approach. Programmes and projects become less effective with this complexity. Managing for inclusion shifts the emphasis to developing an inclusion climate and addressing organizational culture, systems and processes (Kuknor and Bhattacharya, 2021b). Leadership’s strategic, tactical and operational role becomes more critical as organizational di- versity management merges into organizational learning and development (Riccò and Guerci, 2014). Leadership accountability is crucial in developing organizational inclusion (Thistle and Molinaro, 2016).

Leadership will need to understand the complexity of culture and today’s context as they consider a different approach. Their understanding equips them to develop an inclusive organizational culture, systems and processes so everyone can flourish and their organization can thrive. It requires leadership to understand the influence of different cultures within their employees at an organi- zational, team and individual level to harness these cultural differences in a mutually beneficial way for their organization and other employees. It has to address the role of power within all the systems

Chua et al. 639

and processes within the organization (Alon et al., 2016). Furthermore, there will be resistance to organizational change, including change involving diversity management approaches (Velasco and Sansone, 2019). Such change is also a challenge, as any initiative involving culture impacts the entire organisation.

The changing cultural and societal context today calls for greater accountability of leadership and their organization’s diversity management approach (Groysberg and Connolly, 2013). Today’s organization’s long-term success depends on how leadership can ensure that their culturally diverse workforce is empowered to contribute to their organization’s outcomes. Moving from diversity management theory to practice requires leadership to consider how they will approach their or- ganization’s diversity management. This paper looks at the different dimensions of how leadership can practically implement their organization’s diversity management approach. We suggest that three leadership factors (or dimensions) are involved in implementing an organization’s diversity management approach. We now look at these three dimensions in greater detail.

Leadership’s approach to diversity management

The first dimension gauges how leadership approaches managing the cultural diversity in their organisation. Leadership’s approach addresses how the leadership seek to manage that difference. This dimension combines the theories on culture, workforce diversity, diversity management and organizational behaviour. Leadership can approach managing their workforce from the surface approach to the deep approach.

Leadership with a surface-approach manages their workforce primarily through the visible diversity demographic characteristics present within their workforce, such as gender, race, ethnicity, or age. Cultural diversity is viewed as a simple construct that is defined and visible. The surface approach is designed to increase the demographic diversity within the organization and results in managing the demographic or surface-level diversity characteristics. Therefore, their diversity management approach focuses on initiatives in recruitment strategies, diversity training, and leadership development pathways for increasing the presence and participation of members of the workforce who represent the visible diversity characteristics.

In contrast, when leadership adopts a deep approach, the leadership acknowledges the growing complexity of cultural diversity and views its workforce as multi-dimensional employees with many varied deep-level psychological characteristics. Cultural diversity becomes increasingly complex when the hidden and dynamic nature of deep-level characteristics is considered. As the hidden-level diversity is malleable, psychological and increasing in complexity, it requires the emphasis to shift to developing an inclusion climate that creates psychologically safe spaces for everyone to ex- perience value for their uniqueness and contribution (Brimhall et al., 2017; Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006). When deep-level diversity characteristics are valued within teams and in the organization, the positive impact over time of creating psychological safety will result in increased levels of diversity of thought, creativity, and innovation that benefit both the organization and its workforce (Edmondson and Mogelof, 2006; DiStefano and Maznevski, 2000; Harvey, 2013). The deep approach addresses power within the organization (Ahonen et al., 2014). Managing cultural inclusion allows individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds to contribute meaningfully to the organization (Azmat et al., 2015; Chavez and Weisinger, 2008). Organizations where cultural inclusion is prioritized, are likely to have higher employee engagement, increased positivity, productivity, creativity, and innovation today (Bassett-Jones, 2005; D’Netto et al., 2014; Ugwu et al., 2014). We look at some factors that influence leadership’s view of diversity.

640 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

Factors that influence leadership’s approach to diversity management. A critical factor that influences leadership’s view is the development of individual leaders and their collective understanding of cultural diversity with all its complexity. Through personal experience and exposure to differences, every leader is developing their view of cultural diversity. Their developmental journey can be measured by their intercultural sensitivity (Bennett and Bennett, 2001). Research shows that an individual’s first response when encountering difference is fear, but with ongoing interaction, it can develop into acceptance. Every leader will go through the stages of intercultural development, from reinforcing homogeneity, being color-blind, fairness, access and integration, and learning, which results in greater sensitivity to difference. This can influence the overall diversity management approach (Bennett and Bennett, 2001; Bennett, 2014). The different national contexts in which leadership of global organizations operate will also influence the leadership’s view of cultural diversity as leaders are exposed to the different national cultures they have to work in (Dorfman et al., 2012).

Podsiadlowski et al. (2013) describe five similar stages that describe an organization’s approach to managing diversity. These five organizational stages of reinforcing homogeneity, color-blind, fairness, access, and integration and learning mirror the intercultural sensitivity stages of individuals (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). Both these models describe a developmental journey for individual leaders and organizations. This shift from fearing difference to embracing and valuing difference mirrors their organization’s diversity management approach journey from the surface to deep and from the simple to the complex. As leaders develop their individual and collective view of diversity, this will influence their diversity management approach. The diversity present within the leadership team may also influence the leadership’s approach. The research into leadership styles such as inclusive leadership also influences leadership’s view of diversity and the inclusion climate in organizations (Aguirre, 2008; Ashikali et al., 2020).

External factors that influence leadership’s view include the growing diversity of their workforce, the societal shifts in how diversity is being viewed and managed today, and the cultural contexts in which the organization operates. As the world becomes increasingly diverse, leaders may need to consider their views and approach to cultural diversity and even change them. Business drivers to maintain a competitive advantage may also influence leadership’s view. In large global organi- zations, different countries may have unique cultural factors influencing leadership’s view of cultural diversity. For example, gender diversity remains a challenge in some countries, whilst the caste system in India may influence leadership’s view of ethnic diversity (Syed and Ozbilgin, 2010)

Leadership’s view of cultural diversity is the first of three dimensions that we address. The second dimension is leadership’s accountability for diversity management

Leadership accountability for diversity management

In today’s context, there is increasing employee expectation for greater leadership accountability. Successful diversity management approaches require leadership’s accountability (Ng and Sears, 2020). Leadership accountability describes the “commitment of the leader to move things forward in their organization and to take full and personal ownership for their words and actions” (Molinaro, 2015). Their accountability is based on their values and beliefs (Lerner and Tetlock, 2003). Where leadership valued their culturally diverse workforce, the outcomes benefited the workforce and the organization (Ely and Thomas, 2001). This dimension looks at leadership’s openness and com- mitment to its culturally diverse workforce. Today, leadership’s accountability to their culturally diverse workforce requires them to balance the needs of their organization and that of their workforce. This involves their commitment to supporting and funding their organization’s diversity

Chua et al. 641

management approaches. It also involves leadership’s response to the organisation’s challenges and crises related to culture and their workforce. It requires leadership to seek to “do the right thing” and pursue profit and people solutions rather than profit at any cost. This dimension also considers employees’ increasing influence in participating meaningfully within their organization. Although leadership accountability research has not been directly associated with workforce diversity nor with organizational leadership, we believe it plays a critical role in unlocking and advancing today’s organizational diversity management approaches. Leadership accountability becomes critical as organizations seek to remain sustainably competitive and manage their workforce inclusively. Accountability for cultural diversity is most visible in leadership’s response to significant chal- lenges. When challenges like the economic crises, public opinions associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, or allegations of systemic bias within their organization arise, leadership’s response reveals their level of accountability.

The effort put into managing cultural diversity in an organization’s workforce is deter- mined by the level of priority, focus, and commitment of leadership. High leadership ac- countability is demonstrated by the leadership’s intentionality and commitment to their culturally diverse workforce and their organizations, acknowledging that it is the “right thing to do” based on their values and beliefs (Martins, 2020; Ng and Sears, 2020). Organizations with high leadership accountability for diversity management commit to demonstrating care and concern for their staff, not just for what they contribute to the organization. High leadership accountability is demonstrated by sustained commitment and intentionality. In the case of the organization’s diversity management approach, leadership is committed to their workforce and seeks to do what is right and best for both. It also seeks to navigate the complexity of cultural issues and incidents by having robust and supportive processes to investigate these issues. Leadership with high accountability takes the matter seriously and proactively addresses the event or crisis with ongoing review, training, and accountability. One example is Starbucks’ response to the allegations of racism in its workforce. They closed all their stores across the United States for a day to send their entire workforce for unconscious bias training and followed up to track the organization’s development (Gino and Coffman, 2021).

In contrast, low leadership accountability emphasises organizational outcomes with little consideration of workforce engagement and well-being (D’Netto et al., 2014). Leaders with low accountability view their staff as a resource required to ensure the organization is successful from the business perspective and commit to diversity management approaches only when required. Any allegations or critical cultural incidents are ignored, minimized or addressed swiftly and superficially.

Greater leadership accountability results in organizational members collectively achieving the organization’s mission, goal, and success (Swider et al., 2015). Leadership accountability acts as a catalyst within their organizations. We now highlight factors that influence leadership accountability in managing diversity.

Factors that influence leadership accountability for diversity management. External factors include shareholder expectations, organizational context, and public and employee perceptions. For ex- ample, growing public expectations for organizations to become more culturally diverse and in- clusive can influence leadership’s accountability. The growing workforce shortage is influencing the organization’s ability to attract and retain talent. External stakeholders and prospective employees may influence leadership accountability by choosing to do business with the organization or work for the organization that aligns with their values and culture.

642 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

Internal accountability factors involve implicit internal drivers and are influenced by leaders’ integrity, values, and convictions to do what is best for the organization (Wang et al., 2019). Leadership’s beliefs and values are internal factors that influences the priority and commitment to implementing their organization’s diversity management strategy (Ng, 2008; Ng andWyrick, 2011). We now look at the final dimension contributing to leadership’s role in managing their workforce: leadership’s focus of diversity management.

Leadership’s focus of diversity management

This dimension addresses leadership’s strategic focus and for them to customise the diversity management approach for their organization (Seymen, 2006). Leadership focus considers the range of cultural diversity characteristics that leadership chooses to focus on within their organization. Every organization has a context and limited resources. Their focus may depend on the cultural diversity characteristics already present within their organization, or it may be influenced by priorities such as the organization’s purpose or business strategy. Leadership may focus on a few cultural diversity characteristics (narrow) or many diversity characteristics (broad) within their organization. Organizations with a narrow focus choose to focus on one or two cultural diversity characteristics. Conversely, a broad leadership focus will involve multiple cultural diversity characteristics that the leadership focuses on within their organization. This dimension allows for comparisons with organizations with a similar focus.

Factors that influence leadership’s focus of diversity management. Currently, limited research identifies the factors influencing leadership’s focus on cultural diversity. However, we have observed that factors such as the organisation’s size, the industry it works in, and its business purpose may determine the potential for organizations to have a culturally diverse workforce. Leadership’s attempts to recruit a culturally diverse workforce may run into difficulty if there is low potential for the organization to have diversity or if the organization’s purpose or strategy determines leadership’s focus. External and internal factors can influence leadership’s focus of managing cultural diversity within their organizations.

External factors may include the organization’s industry or the changing contexts that require the organization to adapt to gain a sustainable competitive advantage. Specific diversity dimensions may remain a sensitive issue for organisations in some countries that influences the organization’s cultural diversity focus. For other organizations, their strategic focus on major clients or business contexts may require leadership to focus on specific cultural diversity characteristics. For example, in New Zealand, any organization that engages with the public sector is encouraged to adopt a bi- cultural focus that embraces both Pakeha (New Zealand European) and M�aori. The changing workforce demographic of the different sectors may also influence leadership’s focus on cultural diversity. For example, due to labour shortages, in sectors such as construction and agriculture, the focus on employing women and migrants to meet the growing labour shortage is broadening the focus of such organization’s diversity management approach.

Internal factors influencing leadership’s focus include the capability within the organization to cater to a diverse workforce or a diversity characteristic that is significant to the organization’s core business activity. Various industries may have a limited capability to employ a diverse workforce. Specific skill sets and cultural norms within the workforce may influence leadership’s focus. For example, a construction company or a midwifery collective may have limited potential to broaden its focus because of the nature of the work involved. In contrast, a large government agency or a global organization have a greater potential to attract a culturally diverse workforce, as the skills

Chua et al. 643

required to work in such an organization can be undertaken by a broader range of employees. Sometimes, organizations with a narrow focus may have a specific mission to focus on one diversity characteristic. For example, an organization whose mission is to focus on gender will probably have a narrow focus on cultural diversity. Organizations with a broad diversity focus are likely to be large and even global, with the potential to employ a large and diverse workforce.

For leadership to implement an organizational diversity management approach, we suggest that these three factors of leadership’s view of cultural diversity, leadership’s accountability, and leadership focus of diversity management play a critical role in ensuring its success. These three dimensions collectively identify how leadership approach their diversity management for inclusion. We bring these three dimensions together into a conceptual framework that we will now look at.

Background to a conceptual framework

The conceptual framework we are proposing suggests three dimensions for leadership: leadership approach, leadership accountability, and leadership focus of diversity management. From the extant research on culture, diversity and inclusion, diversity management, and leadership, we bring to- gether these three leadership dimensions to propose an organizational framework that can be used to gauge how leadership manage their diverse workforce.

In the workforce diversity management literature, there exists several conceptual frameworks for organizational diversity management approaches (Mor Barak, 2000; Ng, 2008; Fujimoto and Hartel, 2017; Shen et al., 2009; Thomas and Ely, 1996). There are five frameworks in the literature that look at organizational diversity management. Mor Barak (2000) ‘s framework focuses on the organizational ecosystem (Mor Barak, 2000). Thomas and Ely’s framework provides three par- adigms for how organizational diversity management can be approached (Ely and Thomas, 2001). Podsiadlowski et al. (2013) describes a continuum of five diversity perspectives that describe the organization’s views of diversity highlights that there are different stages to an organization’s diversity management approach (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). Ng (2008)’s framework focussed on the key role of the organization’s CEO’s commitment to the implementation of diversity practices in organizations (Ng, 2008). Martins (2020)’s strategic leadership framework looks at the relationship between the characteristics and agency of senior leaders, the strategic diversity leadership and how it operationalises its organizational diversity and inclusion approach (Martins, 2020).

The framework we propose allows for a more nuanced organizational approach. It also provides a practical tool to determine the leadership’s role and their organization’s diversity management approach.

The proposed conceptual framework

This conceptual framework is a three-dimensional framework (see Figure 1), and provides a high- level snapshot of leadership’s role in their organizational diversity management approach. This will vary depending on the ranges of the three dimensions of this framework. This range describes the level of leadership accountability toward cultural diversity (low-high), how broad or narrow the leadership focus on cultural diversity is, and whether the leadership’s view and management approach are surface-level or deep (see Figure 1).

We break down our proposed framework further to look at the two approaches - the surface approach and deep approach and address how leadership accountability and leadership focus intersect within these approaches.

644 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

The surface approach

This approach reflects the diversity management approaches of previous eras when there was less diversity within the organization and when cultural diversity was less complex (Shore et al., 2009). When cultural diversity is viewed mainly from visible surface characteristics, little consideration is given to the complexity of cultural diversity. Leadership who adopt the surface approach emphasises managing surface-level, demographic cultural characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, or na- tionality, in their organizational diversity management approaches.

In this approach, organizational diversity initiatives seek to deliver outcomes that increase the representation and participation of the specific diversity group(s) within the organization. Examples of such initiatives include having quotas or targets to address the low numbers of women in senior leadership positions, or developing diversity resource groups to increase the cultural capability of the different ethnic and races within their organization. The organizational outcomes that a surface approach results in is an increased presence and participation of the different visible diversity characteristics within the organization. This is often qualified with targets and numbers. Some hidden diversity characteristics, such as sexuality, can also be addressed at the surface approach.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of leadership approaches to managing cultural diversity in organizations

Chua et al. 645

Depending on the level of leadership accountability and leadership focus, the organization’s leadership will fall into one of these four octants: (a) Low Leader Accountability-Narrow Lead- ership Focus; (b) Low Leader Accountability-Broad Leadership Focus; (c) High Leader Accountability-Narrow Leadership Focus; (d) High Leader Accountability-Broad Leadership Focus (see Figure 2).

Leadership accountability for diversity management in the surface approach. When we look at leadership accountability at the surface approach, this addresses leadership’s level of openness and com- mitment to managing their visible, culturally diverse workforce. Leadership accountability ranges from low to high. Where leadership accountability is low in this approach, leadership have a superficial appreciation and low commitment to cultural diversity in their diverse workforce (Bogilović et al., 2020). The organization’s diversity management approach is viewed as a cost rather than a means to achieve the organization’s goals. With low leadership accountability, leadership emphasises the organization’s outcomes with little openness and commitment to ensuring the workforce’s contributions and needs. Leadership view their workforce primarily as a resource and cost to achieve their organizational outcomes, with little consideration given to the needs of

Figure 2. The Surface Approach.

646 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

their workforce. As such, there is limited commitment and low resourcing for their workforce. There is limited training and development available for staff. Any diversity initiatives focus on surface- level characteristics led by employees who volunteer to run cultural events and lead groups. This results in an organizational cultural diversity approach where diversity initiatives are ad hoc, employee-driven, and under-resourced. Any ongoing cultural diversity challenges, such as in- tercultural misunderstandings and conflict, systemic biases, and institutional prejudices are often denied by the leadership and not adequately addressed. In organizations with low leadership accountability, staff do not feel heard, valued and are likely to be less engaged, with a constant staff turnover.

In contrast, in organizations with high levels of leadership accountability at the surface level, the leadership are committed to balancing their organization’s need to maintain their competitive advantage whilst ensuring that care is given to consider their workforce’s needs. The leadership does not view these two outcomes as mutually exclusive but as balancing outcomes that must be held in tension. Leadership view their workforce from the surface-level diversity characteristics and are highly committed to managing their diverse workforce by taking accountability and responsibility for their organization’s diversity management initiatives. Such organizations intentionally recruit for a diverse workforce, have an ongoing learning and development program, and have strategies and goals focusing on surface-level characteristics. The leadership is committed to pursuing ac- creditation to certify the organization’s commitment to various surface-level diversity character- istics. In New Zealand, organizations can choose to be audited independently to become accredited organizations that comply with the requirements that support specific visible diversity charac- teristics, such as the Rainbow Tick©, Gender Tick©, and Accessibility Tick©. In organizations with high leadership accountability, critical incidents or crises involving their workforce are ac- knowledged, addressed and resolved promptly, and the root causes are addressed. Whilst such organizations may be visibly diverse, and most employees will feel that their visible cultural identities are acknowledged, there is little emphasis given to developing inclusion, and the or- ganization’s diversity initiatives are ad-hoc and siloed. Not all staff may feel they belong or that they can “bring their whole selves to work". There will be some creativity and innovation, and the workforce may experience some safety and inclusion. However, not all workers will feel safe and belong.

Organizations that emphasise managing surface-level diversity characteristics have not ad- dressed the complexity of cultural diversity. This means that the leadership’s approach emphasises managing the cultural diversity rather than managing for cultural inclusion. We now look at how the third dimension of our framework.

Leadership focus of diversity management in the surface approach. When we consider the leadership focus of diversity management in an organization’s diversity approach, we address which diversity characteristics the organization chooses to focus their strategy on. In the surface approach, this focus is on the surface-level diversity characteristics. As organizations have different capabilities for diversity, this factor allows for organizations in different industries to have a diversity management focus that caters for their organization’s needs and potential for diversity. Leadership focus can be narrow, where the diversity management focus is on one or two surface-level diversity charac- teristics, or broad, focusing on many surface-level diversity characteristics.

An organization’s narrow focus may be due to their organization’s sector or strategic business focus. There are many sectors where the potential for a diverse workforce may be limited. Different industries, organizational focus or countries may require leadership’s focus on cultural diversity to be narrow. For some organizations, the narrow focus allows the leadership to focus on their purpose

Chua et al. 647

or business strategy, such as women’s leadership or an organization whose clients reflect one of the surface diversity characteristics. Their diversity and inclusion initiatives have a narrow focus, where the specific emphasis of their initiatives is to increase representation and participation of their narrow diversity focus. This factor does not exclude the other remaining diversity characteristics present within the organization but focuses on key surface-level characteristics as part of their organization’s strategy. It also allows organizations that may identify as less diverse to pursue managing their workforce inclusively.

In larger, diverse or global organizations, there is greater potential to have a culturally diverse workforce due to the size of the organization’s workforce and the nature of work. This allows leadership to have a broad diversity focus in managing their diverse workforce. The broad focus allows leadership to focus on many, if not all the surface-diversity dimensions in their diversity management strategy. The broad range of initiatives includes many surface diversity characteristics of age, gender, ethnicity, nationality and accessibility. There will be cultural celebrations, training and development, and a strategy to increase the presence and participation of employees who represent these diversity characteristics within their organization. These goals may include lead- ership development pathways, diverse support groups and networks, and gaining specific orga- nizational diversity accreditations. The outcomes of such a focus become quantitative goals of having the different surface-level diversity characteristics present at all levels of the organization.

The conceptual framework in surface approach. When we combine all three factors into the proposed conceptual framework with the surface approach, the organization’s diversity management efforts and activities emphasize managing the visible diversity characteristics. Leadership’s commitment and focus on organizational outcomes centre on increasing employees’ presence, representation and participation with these diversity characteristics within organizations. The outcome of the surface approach is to become a diverse organization. Leadership’s effort and commitment to their culturally diverse workforce seek to create opportunities and pathways for their diverse employees to work in their organization.

Whilst the organization may become visibly diverse, the organization may not reap the full benefits diversity promises. At the surface approach, there is less emphasis on developing a climate of inclusion or systematically addressing cultural diversity across the organization. Without es- tablishing an inclusive climate and systems (Randel et al., 2016), this often results in limited psychological safety required for diverse perspectives to emerge. Whilst there is growing staff engagement, and some creativity and innovation exist, some employees may not feel safe to contribute fully, and the organization may face challenges in the long term for staff engagement and retention (Truss et al., 2013; Yadav and Katiyar, 2017). In today’s context, staff seek greater inclusion and belonging within their organization. The surface approach results in the limited success of diversity management initiatives that benefit both the organization and the workforce. When we also combine the current levels of leadership accountability and leadership’s diversity focus, it provides us with the current leadership approach to their organizational diversity man- agement approach and possible outcomes. Next, we look at the leadership of organizations that address their diversity management with the deep approach.

The deep approach

Different dynamics result when we consider leadership positioned in the four deep approach quadrants (see Figure 3).

648 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

The deep approach involves a shift from mainly managing surface-level diversity characteristics to placing a greater emphasis on managing the deep-level diversity characteristics. In the deep approach, leadership emphasizes managing deep-level characteristics such as values and beliefs in their organizational diversity management approaches. In the deep approach, cultural inclusion integrates the organization’s diversity management approaches into the organizational culture, systems and processes where differences are valued, and a common purpose brings together the diverse organization to deliver the outcomes for everyone. Managing for inclusion of diversity shifts to systematically integrating organizational learning, fostering an inclusion climate, systems, policies, and processes in the organization (Ely and Thomas, 2020; DiStefano and Maznevski, 2000). The deep approach goes beyond the surface approach of having a visibly diverse workforce to enable the diverse workforce to contribute meaningfully towards the organization’s focus.

There are four quadrants with the deep approach: (a) Low Leader Accountability-Narrow Leadership View; (b) Low Leader Accountability-Broad Leadership View; (c) High Leader Accountability-Narrow Leadership View; and (d) High Leader-Accountability-Broad Leadership View.

Figure 3. The Deep Approach.

Chua et al. 649

Leadership accountability for diversity management in the deep approach. When we consider leadership accountability in the deep approach, this addresses how open and committed leadership are to developing cultural inclusion within their organizations. This requires leadership to commit to integrating cultural diversity into their organization’s culture, systems and process (Pless and Maak, 2004). The deep approach addresses the complexity of cultural diversity as it requires leadership to grapple with intersectionality and the divergence of cultural identities within their workforce. Underlying the culturally inclusive organizational culture is leadership’s commitment to developing a common purpose, language and psychological safety for every member of the organization (Lauring and Selmer, 2010).

Organisations with low leadership accountability for diversity management in the deep approach will have leadership with a low commitment to their culturally diverse workforce. Leadership focuses on values that benefit its business outcomes with little consideration given to the diverse perspectives and views that its culturally diverse workforce offers. The leaders may be aware of the influence of cultural diversity but place a low priority on understanding the diverse values and beliefs of their workforce. Rather, an organisational culture reflects the leadership and majority of the workforce. The low accountability of leadership is such that leadership are not open and committed to deepening their understanding and view of cultural diversity. Leadership commits limited resources to develop the organization’s workforce, and unresolved tensions exist when different values and worldviews collide. Staff who feel safe experience inclusion and belonging, whilst those who do not may feel uncomfortable working there.

Organizations with highly accountable leadership that adopt a deep approach pursue de- veloping cultural inclusion within their organization. Their commitment to fostering an or- ganizational culture that values everyone is evident in all aspects of the organization, from their leadership appointments, sponsorship, and active participation in organizational diversity initiatives. Leadership proactively commits to ensuring that their organizational systems in- tegrate diverse cultural values and beliefs into the organizational systems, policies, and pro- cesses with ongoing training and development available for their staff. For example, they are seeking not only to recruit a diverse workforce but ensure that the process is culturally sensitive and inclusive. Rather than an emphasis on visible diversity, the emphasis of leadership is to develop safe spaces for diverse perspectives and values to emerge and be heard and contribute to the organization’s purpose.

Leadership may use public accountability tools such as the Global Diversity Equity Inclusion Benchmarks1 to assess and map how they will implement organizational initiatives system- atically and actively commit to undertaking what is required to develop the organization further. They are intentional in developing cultural inclusion with a focus on an inclusive climate, facilitating psychological safety for everyone, thus increasing engagement, creativity and innovation, owing to the coalesce of different values, attitudes, and beliefs (Bouncken, 2009; Post, 2012). Inequities, cultural challenges and microaggressions at the organizational level are actively addressed, and lessons are learned from the process. Employee engagement is generally high and supportive of leadership, and there is a collective sense of the organization being a great workplace.

Leadership focus of diversity management in the deep approach. When we consider leadership focus of diversity management in the deep approach, the focus turns to the hidden diversity characteristics, often values such as being inclusive or hidden diversity characteristics such as their professional focus. The range of focus can be narrow or broad.

650 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

The narrow leadership focus in the deep approach has one or two deep-level diversity characteristics as part of leadership’s efforts to develop cultural inclusion. Organizations with a narrow focus may result from the workforce’s composition, mission, or the sector or location in which it works. These may be part of the organization’s values and culture. In the deep approach, the emphasis is on a positive inclusion climate that embraces a few deep-level characteristics. This can result in increased psychological safety for employees who align with the organization’s focus, which can lead to increasing creativity, in- novation, and staff engagement (Truss et al., 2013). Employees who do not fully embrace the values in focus may be less engaged to contribute fully to the organization.

Where organizations have a broad focus, the leadership focus on several values that contribute to how leadership develops cultural inclusion within their organization. The many deep values are also integrated into the organization’s culture and purpose, enabling leadership to create an organization where everyone can experience inclusion and belonging through the inclusive climate. Leadership’s broad focus on the deep approach requires leadership to develop cultural inclusion within their teams and organizations for their staff to experience inclusion and belonging. As a result, the organisation will have high levels of creativity and innovation and increase employee engagement and well-being (Goswami and Kishor, 2018).

The framework in the deep approach. When we combine all three factors into the proposed conceptual framework with the deep approach, the emphasis of their diversity management approach lies in developing cultural inclusion. With this approach, leadership emphasises developing an organizational culture that values diversity to benefit the organization and its employees. It also requires leadership to address the inequities within the systems, structures and processes that become a barrier for members of their workforce. This approach integrates diversity management into all aspects of the organization system and enables leadership to address the complexity of cultural diversity within their workforce. The organization may look culturally diverse, but it is also allowed to behave as a culturally diverse inclusive organization.

We now discuss how the conceptual framework can be used for the practical development of an organization’s cultural diversity management approach.

Implications for practice

As the influence of cultural diversity impacts the organization’s ability to attract and retain its workforce and achieve its intended business outcomes, organizations continue to ask how they can manage cultural diversity successfully today. Our conceptual framework serves as a practical organizational tool to help leadership in several ways. This conceptual framework allows for a high- level assessment of how leadership approaches diversity management in their organization today. This framework can serve as a useful organizational tool that allows leadership to identify their current organizational diversity management approach. It can also enable leadership to identify if their diversity initiatives are aligned into an organisational approach to deliver the outcomes of the approach. Leadership can also use this framework to map their organizational development plans to design and plan their future diversity management initiatives. Finally, this conceptual framework can also be used to compare with other organizations about how leadership manages their culturally diverse workforce. We now discuss the proposed conceptual framework and its research implications.

Chua et al. 651

Discussion and Conclusion

The conceptual framework

This framework extends the current research by bridging the different diversity management approaches across the eras that range from managing diversity to managing for inclusion that addresses the complexity of cultural diversity (Azmat et al., 2015; Chavez and Weisinger, 2008). Placing the leadership of an organization into one of the eight clearly defined octants that address diversity management approaches may not be as straightforward. Testing this framework with empirical data will enable us to see if the dimensions in this framework are clear and where the nuance lies.

This framework is an attempt to seek a practical solution to how organizations today manage their culturally diverse workforce. As culture increases in complexity, organizational diversity management approaches have not delivered the outcomes that diversity promises. We see that leadership plays a key role in this, but has not been fully addressed in the extant literature. We now look at some of the factors that can change leadership’s position in the octants.

Factors that influence a change in position in the framework. External and internal factors can shift leadership’s position within the framework. These factors might include a change in leadership in the organization, various organizational crises, a change in the societal, political or business contexts, a merger, or an acquisition. These changes can potentially shift leadership’s position from one octant to another. For instance, the recent pandemic and potential economic recession may challenge leadership regarding their commitment to their culturally diverse workforce due to the cost and effort required. It may also challenge leadership’s approach as stress to the system will challenge leadership’s view.

Limitations

There are limitations to this conceptual framework. As organizations are constantly evolving, the static nature of this framework only captures the organization’s position at one point in time. This may not reflect the leadership’s intentions or the direction they are seeking to lead the organization. It is also difficult to determine if the eight octants can be clearly defined, as the binary nature of the current framework may need to be reviewed for a more nuanced leadership position. Different perspectives and perceptions may place leadership in different positions.

This conceptual framework also has not addressed the tension thatmay exist between the external and internal realities of the organization’s approach. Public expectations of the organization may require leadership to have a surface approach, whilst internally employees seek leadership to adopt a deep approach. For large global organizations, different country contexts may require leadership to have a different focus from that at the global level to that within the local context. Another limitation is its emphasis on the position of organizational leadership. By focusing primarily on organizational lead- ership, this framework assumes that all the members of the organization’s leadership share the same views, accountability, and focus or at least agree to in principle. However, it will be critical to identify any variance within the organization’s leadership’s view, accountability, and focus that can influence the strength of the collective leadership’s position in the framework.

Currently, this framework maps the leadership’s position on managing its culturally diverse workforce. However, this only considers the leadership’s perspective and may not represent the views of others in the organization. As today’s paradigm seeks to manage cultural diversity within organizations to benefit both the organization and their employees, seeking the employees’ and

652 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

external stakeholders’ perspectives would help provide a more holistic picture of how the leadership approaches diversity management in the organization is doing.

Future research directions

This framework remains a conceptual one that requires validation through field research. Future research can look at testing this framework by collecting data on leadership and their attempts at their diversity management approach. We have identified three specific areas for future research.

The first area involves further development of the three dimensions of the conceptual framework - leaders’ views of cultural diversity, leadership accountability for diversity management, and leadership focus of diversity management. Concerning leadership’s view of diversity, future re- search can examine how to develop the collective leadership’s view so that they can make sense of the complexity of cultural diversity. Research into leadership accountability in different national contexts will also strengthen this framework. Further research can also quantify how many deep- level cultural characteristics are considered broad, given the vast number of possible deep-level characteristics and how these impact the development of cultural inclusion. As research into leadership and cultural inclusion continue to grow, other opportunities include looking at the practical ways leadership can design organizational systems, policies, and processes that lead to cultural inclusion.

Other research could address whether specific deep-level cultural values in cross-cultural contexts, such as respect for elders or an honour-shame worldview, could impact leadership ac- countability. Another area of research into leadership accountability is to identify the catalysts of what could shift leadership accountability from low to high across different contexts. Concerning the scope of leadership focus, further research could examine how the environment (context) influences leadership’s focus.

The second area of future research involves the refinement of this framework. The range within the dimensions in the current framework is described as dichotomies. This can be nuanced further by transforming the dimensions into a continuum scale that quantifies the leadership’s position. The framework can be further developed by either adding a series of questions that can measure each dimension or drawing on extant research with individual scales for each dimension. There are validated quantitative scales that measure individual leader accountability and leadership views (intercultural sensitivity) that could be validated to collect quantitative data to strengthen this conceptual framework as a collective organization leadership framework (Bennett and Bennett, 2001; Wood and Winston, 2007). Measuring the variation within the organizational leadership and in its different country contexts can also gauge the collective leadership’s commitment and openness. Longitudinal research collecting data over several time points could track how respective organizations are progressing concerning their positions in the framework and the factors influ- encing the organization’s development. The third area of future research is to explore if the or- ganization’s size and context influence the validity of this framework.

The evidence of the benefits of cultural diversity and inclusion has been drawn from different empirical studies. Collecting empirical data from this framework that also measures the outcomes such as creativity, innovation, and employee well-being can strengthen this framework’s use in practice. Furthermore, much of the extant research into workforce diversity has originated in the US and western contexts (Jonsen et al., 2011). Applying this framework to organizations in non-western contexts will test the universality of this framework.

The conceptual framework presented here bridges diversity management approaches of previous eras to today’s approach by proposing a three-dimensional framework to describe leadership’s

Chua et al. 653

diversity management. It provides a practical tool for leadership to understand their position and identify potential avenues for organisational development. As they position their organization in an octant, ongoing work to design and develop organizational initiatives in the octant that leadership seek to be in can ensure that the organization is embarking on managing their culturally diverse workforce. Addressing leadership’s views of cultural diversity, their level of accountability, and the scope of their focus on cultural diversity allows them to navigate how they manage the growing complexity of cultural diversity within their workforce to ensure that everyone can succeed and thrive together.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Shireen Wei Yuin Chua  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4730-1164

Note

1. The Global Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Benchmarks are a set of evidence-based benchmarks that equip leadership to be accountable for managing diversity and fostering inclusion by looking at the key focus areas within their organizations. www.centreforinclusion.org

References

Abu Bakar H and McCann RM (2018) Workgroup diversity. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 23(1): 35–50. DOI: 10.1108/ccij-03-2017-0012.

Aguirre A (2008) Diversity, social capital, and leadership practices: building inclusive learning organisations. International Journal of Management and Decision Making 9(5): 526.

Ahonen P, Tienari J, Meriläinen S, et al. (2014) Hidden contexts and invisible power relations: a Foucauldian reading of diversity research. Human Relations 67(3): 263–286. DOI: 10.1177/0018726713491772.

Ali M and Konrad AM (2017) Antecedents and consequences of diversity and equality management systems: the importance of gender diversity in the TMT and lower to middle management. European Management Journal 35(4): 440–453. DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2017.02.002.

Allen R, Dawson G, Wheatley K, et al. (2004) Diversity practices: learning responses for modern organi- zations. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal 18(6): 13–15. DOI: 10. 1108/14777280410564185.

Alon I, Boulanger M, Meyers J, et al. (2016) The development and validation of the business cultural in- telligence quotient. Cross Cultural and Strategic Management 23(1): 78–100. DOI: 10.1108/CCSM-10- 2015-0138.

Ashikali T, Groeneveld S, and Kuipers B (2020) The role of inclusive leadership in supporting an inclusive climate in diverse public sector teams. Review of Public Personnel Administration 41(3): 734371. DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19899722.

Azmat F, Fujimoto Y, and Rentschler R (2015) Exploring cultural inclusion: perspectives from a community arts organisation. Australian Journal of Management 40(2): 375–396. DOI: 10.1177/0312896214525180.

654 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

Bassett-Jones N (2005) The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management 14(2): 169–175. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.00337.x.

Bebbington D and Ozbilgin MF (2013) The paradox of diversity in leadership and leadership for diversity. Management International, 17, 14-24. DOI: 10.7202/1015808ar.

Bennett JM (2014) Intercultural competence: vital perspectives for diversity and inclusion Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp. 155–176. DOI: 10.1002/ 9781118764282.ch5.

Bennett JM and Bennett MJ (2001) Developing intercultural sensitivity: an integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. Diversity Collegium 1–44. DOI: 10.4135/9781452231129.N6.

Berry JW (2005) Acculturation: living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29(6): 697–712. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013.

Berry JW (2008) Globalisation and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32: 328–336. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.04.001.

Boekhorst JA (2015) The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: a social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management 54(2): 241. DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21669.

Bogilović S, Bortoluzzi G, Černe M, et al. (2020) Diversity, climate and innovative work behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management 24:1460. DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-03-2020-0100.

Boone C and Hendriks W (2009) Top management team diversity and firm performance: moderators of functional-background and locus-of-control diversity. Management Science 55(2): 165–180. DOI: 10. 1287/mnsc.1080.0899.

Bouncken RB (2009) Cultural diversity in innovation teams: surface and deep level effects. International Journal of Business Research 9(4): 17–26.

Brimhall KC, Mor Barak ME, Hurlburt M, et al. (2017) Increasing workplace inclusion: the promise of leader- member exchange. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance 41(3): 222–239. DOI: 10.1080/23303131.2016.1251522.

Bryer A (2020) Making organizations more inclusive: the work of belonging. Organization Studies 41(5): 641–660.

Buengeler C, Leroy H, and De Stobbeleir K (2018) How leaders shape the impact of HR’s diversity practices on employee inclusion. Human Resource Management Review 28(3): 289. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02. 005.

Canas KA and Sondak H (2014) Opportunities and Challenges of Workplace Diversity: Theory, Cases and Exercise. 3rd edition. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.

Chavez CI and Weisinger JY (2008) Beyond diversity training: a social infusion for cultural inclusion. Human Resource Management 47(2): 331–350. DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20215.

Cho S, Crenshaw KW, and McCall L (2013) Toward a field of intersectionality studies: theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 38(4): 785–810.

Cox T (1994) Cultural diversity in organisations: research, theory and practice. Journal of Intercultural Management 2(2):5–15.

Cox T (2001) Creating the Multicultural Organization : A Strategy for Capturing the Power of Diversity. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Crenshaw K (1991) Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299. DOI: 10.2307/1229039.

Cunningham GB and Sagas M (2004) Examining the main and interactive effects of deep-and surface-level diversity on job satisfaction and organizational turnover intentions. Organizational Analysis 12:319–332. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013705.pub2/pdf.

Chua et al. 655

Curtis EF and Dreachslin JL (2008) Diversity management interventions and organizational performance: a synthesis of current literature. Human Resource Development Review 7(1): 107–134. DOI: 10.1177/ 1534484307311700.

DiStefano JJ and Maznevski ML (2000) Creating value with diverse teams in global management. Orga- nizational Dynamics 29(1): 45–63. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00012-7.

Dorfman P, Javidan M, Hanges P, et al. (2012) GLOBE: a twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business 47(4): 504–518. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004.

D’Netto B, Shen J, Chelliah J, et al. (2014) Human resource diversity management practices in the Australian manufacturing sector. International Journal of Human ResourceManagement 25(9): 1243. DOI: 10.1080/ 09585192.2013.826714.

Edmondson AC and Mogelof JP (2006) Explaining psychological safety in innovation teams: organizational culture, team dynamics, or personality? In: Thompson LL and Hoon-Seok C (eds) Creativity and In- novation in Organizational Teams. London, England: Psychology Press, pp. 129–156. DOI: 10.4324/ 9781410615732.

Ely RJ and Thomas DA (2001) Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(2): 229–273. DOI: 10.2307/2667087.

Ely RJ and Thomas DA (2020) Getting serious about diversity: enough already with the business case.Harvard Business Review 98(6): 114–122.

Feitosa J, Hagenbuch S, Patel B, et al. (2022) Performing in diverse settings: a diversity, equity, and inclusion approach to culture. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 22:147059582211367. DOI: 10.1177/14705958221136707.

Ferdman BM (2017) Paradoxes of inclusion: understanding and managing the tensions of diversity and multiculturalism. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 53(2): 235–263. DOI: 10.1177/ 0021886317702608.

Friday E and Friday SS (2003) Managing diversity using a strategic planned change approach. The Journal of Management Development 22:0262–1711. DOI: 10.1108/02621710310505467/full/html.

Fujimoto Y and Hartel CEJ (2017) Organizational diversity learning framework: going beyond diversity training programs. Personnel Review 46(6): 1120–1141. DOI: 10.1108/PR-09-2015-0254.

Gardenswartz L, Cherbosque J, and Rowe A (2010) Emotional intelligence and diversity: a model for dif- ferences in the workplace. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture 1(1): 74–84. DOI: 10.1002/jpoc.20002.

Gino F and CoffmanK (2021) Unconscious bias training that works.Harvard Business Review 99(5): 114–123.

Gonzalez JA (2010) Diversity change in organizations: a systemic, multilevel, and nonlinear process. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 46(2): 197. DOI: 10.1177/0021886310367943.

Goswami S and Kishor B (2018) Exploring the relationship between workforce diversity, inclusion and employee engagement. Drishtikon : A Management Journal 9(1): 65–89.

Gotsis G and Kortezi Z (2015) Critical Studies in Diversity Management Literature: A Review and Synthesis. New York, NY:Springer.

Groysberg B and Connolly K (2013) Great leaders who make the mix work: twenty-four CEOs on creating diverse and inclusive organizations. Harvard Business Review 91(9): 68.

Harrison DA and Sin HS (2006) What is diversity and how should it be measured? In: Konrad AM, Prasad P, and Pringle JK (eds) Handbook of Workplace Diversity. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Sage, pp. 191–216.

Harrison D, Price K, and Bell M (1998) Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal 41(1): 96–107.

Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, et al. (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal 45(5): 1029–1045.

656 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

Harvey S (2013) A different perspective: the multiple effects of deep level diversity on group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49(5): 822–832. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.004.

Hays-Thomas R (2015) Building diversity competence through historical and demographic knowledge: helpful information for managers. Psychologist-Manager Journal 18(3–4): 121.

Holmes IV O, Jiang K, Avery DR, et al. (2021) A meta-analysis integrating 25 years of diversity climate research. Journal of Management 47(6): 1357–1382. DOI: 10.1177/0149206320934547.

Jin M, Lee J, and Lee M (2017) Does leadership matter in diversity management? Assessing the relative impact of diversity policy and inclusive leadership in the public sector. The Leadership & Organization De- velopment Journal 38(2): 303–319. DOI: 10.1108/LODJ-07-2015-0151.

Jonsen K, Maznevski ML, and Schneider SC (2011) Special review article: diversity and its not so diverse literature: an international perspective. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 11(1): 35–62. DOI: 10.1177/1470595811398798.

Köllen T (2021) Diversity management: a critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management Inquiry 30(3): 259–272.

Konrad AM (2006) Leveraging workplace diversity in organizations.Organization Management Journal 3(3): 1640169. DOI: 10.1057/omj.2006.18.

Kossek EE, Lobel SA, and Brown J (2006) Human Resource Strategies to Manage Workforce Diversity. Handbook of Workplace Diversity 53–74.

Kuknor S and Bhattacharya S (2021a) Organizational inclusion and leadership in times of global crisis. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal 15(1): 93–112. DOI: 10.14453/aabfj.v15i1.7.

Kuknor S and Bhattacharya S (2021b) Exploring organizational inclusion and inclusive leadership in Indian companies. European Business Review 33(3): 450–464. DOI: 10.1108/ebr-04-2020-0089.

Lauring J (2013) International diversity management: global ideals and local responses. British Journal of Management 24(2): 211–224. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00798.x.

Lauring J and Selmer J (2010) Multicultural organizations: common language and group cohesiveness. In- ternational Journal of Cross Cultural Management 10(3): 267–284. DOI: 10.1177/1470595810384587.

Lerner JS and Tetlock PE (2003) Bridging individual, interpersonal, and institutional approaches to judgment and decision making: the impact of accountability on cognitive bias. In: Schneider SL and James S (eds) Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, pp 431–457. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511609978.015

Martins LL (2020) Strategic diversity leadership: the role of senior leaders in delivering the diversity dividend. Journal of Management 46(7): 1191–1204.

Mazur B (2010) Cultural diversity in organisational theory and practice. Journal of Intercultural Management 2(2): 5–15.

Molinaro V (2015) Driving leadership accountability: a critical business priority for HR leaders. People and Strategy 38(3): 32.

Mor BarakME (2000) The inclusive workplace: an ecosystems approach to diversity management. Social Work 45(4): 339–353.

Mor Barak ME (2011) Managing Diversity: Towards a Globally Inclusive Workplace. 2nd edition. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Sage.

Nembhard IM and Edmondson AC (2006) Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(7): 941–966. DOI: 10.1002/job.413.

Ng ESW (2008) Why organizations choose to manage diversity? Toward a leadership-based theoretical framework. Human Resource Development Review 7(1): 58. DOI: 10.1177/1534484307311592.

Chua et al. 657

Ng ES and Sears GJ (2020)Walking the talk on diversity: CEO beliefs, moral values, and the implementation of workplace diversity practices. Journal of Business Ethics 164(3): 437–450. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-018- 4051-7.

Ng E and Wyrick CR (2011) Motivational bases for managing diversity: a model of leadership commitment. Human Resource Management Review 21: 368–376. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.05.002.

Nkomo SM, Bell MP, Roberts LM, et al. (2019) Diversity at a critical juncture: new theories for a complex phenomenon. Academy of Management Review 44(3): 498–517. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2019.0103.

Özbilgin MF, Beauregard TA, Tatli A, et al. (2011) Work–Life, diversity and intersectionality: a critical review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 13(2): 177–198. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1468-2370.2010.00291.x.

Pekerti AA (2019) n-Culturalism in Managing Work and Life. New York, NY: Springer International. DOI: 10. 1007/978-3-030-27282-1.

Pekerti AA and Thomas DC (2016) N-Culturals: modeling the multicultural identity. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management 23(1):101–127. DOI: 10.1108/CCSM-06-2014-0063.

Phillips KWand Loyd DL (2006)When surface and deep-level diversity collide: the effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99(2): 143–160. DOI: 10.1016/j. obhdp.2005.12.001.

Pless N and Maak T (2004) Building an inclusive diversity culture: principles, processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethics 54(2): 129–147. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-004-9465-8.

Podsiadlowski A, Groschke D, Kogler M, et al. (2013) Managing a culturally diverse workforce: diversity perspectives in organizations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37(2): 159–175. DOI: 10. 1016/j.ijintrel.2012.09.001.

Post C (2012) Deep-level team composition and innovation: the mediating roles of psychological safety and cooperative learning. Group & Organization Management 37(5): 555–588. DOI: 10.1177/ 1059601112456289.

Randel AE, Dean MA, Karen Holcombe E, et al. (2016) Leader inclusiveness, psychological diversity climate, and helping behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology 31(1): 216–234. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-04-2013- 0123.

Riccò R and Guerci M (2014) Diversity challenge: an integrated process to bridge the ‘implementation gap. Business Horizons 57(2): 235–245. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2013.11.007.

Richard OC, Kirby SL, and Chadwick K (2013) The impact of racial and gender diversity in management on financial performance: how participative strategy making features can unleash a diversity advantage. International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(13): 2571.

Rijamampianina R and Carmichael T (2005) A pragmatic and holistic approach to managing diversity. Problems and Perspectives in Management 1: 109–117.

Roberson Q, Holmes O, and Perry JL (2017) Transforming research on diversity and firm performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective. The Academy of Management Annals 11(1): 189–216. DOI: 10.5465/ annals.2014.0019.

Roccas S and Brewer MB (2002) Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review 6(2): 88–106. DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01.

Rodriguez JK, Holvino E, Fletcher JK, et al. (2016) The theory and praxis of intersectionality in work and organisations: where do we go from here.Gender, Work and Organization 23(3): 201–222. DOI: 10.1111/ gwao.12131.

Seymen OA (2006) The cultural diversity phenomenon in organisations and different approaches for effective cultural diversity management: a literary review. Cross Cultural Management: International Journal 13(4): 296–315. DOI: 10.1108/13527600610713404.

658 International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 23(3)

Shen J, Chanda A, D’Netto B, et al. (2009) Managing diversity through human resource management: an international perspective and conceptual framework. International Journal of Human Resource Man- agement 20(2): 235–251. DOI: 10.1080/09585190802670516.

Shore LM, Chung-Herrera BG, DeanMA, et al. (2009) Diversity in organizations: where are we now andwhere are we going? Human Resource Management Review 19(2): 117.

Shore LM, Cleveland JN, and Sanchez D (2018) Inclusive workplaces: a review and model. Human Resource Management Review 28(2): 176–189. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003.

Spencer-Oatey H (2007) Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics 39(4): 639–656. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004.

Swider BW, Zimmerman RD, Charlier SD, et al. (2015) Deep-level and surface-level individual differences and applicant attraction to organizations: a meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 88: 73–83. DOI: 10. 1016/j.jvb.2015.01.005.

Syed J and Ozbilgin MF (2010) Managing Cultural Diversity in Asia a Research Companion. Northampton, Mass: Edward Elgar Pub.

Tajfel H (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology 33(1): 1–39. DOI: 10. 1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245.

Thistle B and Molinaro V (2016) Driving organizational transformation through strong leadership ac- countability: it’s time for HR leaders to step up. People and Strategy 39(3): 28–31.

Thomas DA and Ely RJ (1996) Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review 74(5): 79–90.

Truss C, Shantz A, Soane E, et al. (2013) Employee engagement, organisational performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing the theory. International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(14): 2657–2669. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2013.798921.

Ugwu FO, Onyishi IE, and Rodriguez-S�anchez AM (2014) Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: the role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review 43(3): 377–400. DOI: 10.1108/ PR-11-2012-0198.

Velasco MMA and Sansone CP (2019) Resistance to diversity and inclusion change initiatives: strategies for transformational leaders. Organization Development Journal 37(3): 9–20.

Vertovec S (2007) Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6): 1024–1054. DOI: 10. 1080/01419870701599465.

Vito R and Sethi B (2020) Managing change: role of leadership and diversity management. Journal of Organizational Change Management 33(7): 1471–1483. DOI: 10.1108/jocm-04-2019-0116.

Wang J, Cheng GH, Chen T, et al. (2019) Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: a meta- analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 40(6): 693–708. DOI: 10.1002/job.2362.

Wood JA and Winston BE (2007) Development of three scales to measure leader accountability. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28(2): 167–185. DOI: 10.1108/01437730710726859.

Yadav A andKatiyar D (2017)Workforce diversity and individual difference: implications for employee engagement. Indian Journal of Commerce & Management Studies 8(3): 7–15. DOI: 10.18843/ijcms/v8i3/02.

Zanoni P and Janssens M (2015) The power of diversity discourses at work: on the interlocking nature of diversities and occupations. Organization Studies 36(11): 1463.

Zolfaghari B, Mallering G, Clark T, et al. (2016) How do we adopt multiple cultural identities? A multi- dimensional operationalization of the sources of culture. European Management Journal 34(2): 102–113. DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.01.003.

Chua et al. 659