Case Study

Creating a culture of inclusion and belongingness in remote work environments that sustains meaningful work Marilyn Y. Byrd

Department of Human Relations, University of Oklahoma, Norman, ME, US

ABSTRACT The shift to a remote work environment introduced new barriers to inclusion that calls for reimagining the contexts and cultures that individuals are now working in. Key impacts of an inclusive culture discussed in this article are feelings of belongingness and engaging in meaningful work. Sustaining an inclusive culture, means that employers will need to re-think critical organizational forces such as leadership that are needed to reinforce a culture of inclusion. Implications for human resource development (HRD) will empha- size how emergent research of an inclusive, remote work environ- ment creates opportunities to engage in trans-disciplinary research that informs practitioners on how to reimagine the changed land- scape of work.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 30 November 2021 Accepted 21 February 2022

KEYWORDS Inclusion; culture; meaningful work; belongingness; inclusive leadership

As a consequence of the global pandemic, organizations faced an unexpected disruption in the traditional way that work was performed. The shift to a remote work environment introduced new barriers to how people feel included, connected, and derive meaning from their work (Attfield, Barth, and Barth 2021). This shift calls for reimagining the contexts and cultures that individuals are now working in (Goldman and Sterling 2020). Furthermore, these barriers challenged organizational leaders to reimagine how a culture of inclusion transfers to a remote environment so that people can maintain a sense of belonging. An existing culture that is positive, enduring, supportive, and encompassing is needed to ensure workers remain connected, engaged, and productive (Belle, Burley, and Long 2015).

Inclusion can be viewed as a ‘value, and as such must be inherent in and integrated into all aspects of an organization<apos;>s culture’ (Winters 2014, 211). An inclusive culture is commonly linked to diversity (Ferdman 2014). Using a pluralistic frame, inclusion provides the opportunity for socially marginalized groups to participate con- currently and contribute equally at all organizational levels with nonmarginalized groups while retaining their authentic social identity (Shore, Cleveland, and Sanchez 2018). However, as will unfold in this article, situations and events can impact an inclusive culture in ways beyond diversity. While inclusion in terms of recognizing underrepre- sented groups remains critical, the changing landscape of work requires casting a wider net. Inclusion means bringing attention to how people feel about their work and how these feelings can transfer to another context to do the same work (Strafel 2021).

CONTACT Marilyn Y. Byrd [email protected]

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 2022, VOL. 25, NO. 2, 145–162 https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2047252

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Inclusion, or an inclusive culture, cannot be achieved without addressing the core of an organization<apos;>s culture and how elements of the culture can potentially create exclusionary practices (Nkomo 2014). The core of inclusion is the psychological experi- ence that can operate at the individual level, but often at the collective level (Ferdman 2014). It is made possible by the behavior of those in a working relationship, the values, norms, practices, and processes that define the experience, and most important the leadership approach that sustains the experience. An organization<apos;>s culture is generally expressed as symbols, artifacts, values, structures, systems, processes, and assumptions that create the norm for an organization (Schein 1990). Although these features provide the container for an individual to experience the environment where they work, an individual<apos;>s unique experience may run deeper (Ferdman 2014). Culture is created through social forces that are derived from ways that individuals interact with others; therefore, socialization is crucial to maintaining a culture in a remote work setting (Alvesson 1990; Eriksson and Santesson 2021).

The purpose of this article is to consider how the shift to a remote work environment has caused a disruption in an organization<apos;>s culture where belongingness and inclusion are fundamental elements for performing meaningful work. A discussion of key impacts of this workplace shift on the organization<apos;>s culture will be followed by the introduction of Inclusive Leadership (Booysen 2014; Bourke and Dillon 2018; Randel et al. 2018; Ryan 2006; Tapia and Polonskaia 2020), a novel leadership approach that has not been widely applied in the human resource development (HRD) literature. Inclusive Leadership is distinct from traditional leadership approaches in that the leader<apos;>s disposition toward equality, openness to difference, and promoting an inclusive climate is reinforced throughout the organization<apos;>s system (Bourke and Dillon 2018). Finally, implications for HRD will emphasize how emergent research of an inclusive, remote work environment creates opportunities to engage in trans-disciplinary research that informs practitioners on how to reimagine the changed landscape of work.

The shift to working in a remote work environment

Remote work has produced a sense of exclusion and feelings of being disconnected to others (Carnevale and Hatak 2020). Exclusion can be further embedded in remote work experiences in relation to an individual<apos;>s underrepresented social group status. In this article, I build on the premise that remote work environments contribute to feelings of exclusion which should challenge employers to re-think critical organizational forces such as leadership that are needed to reinforce an inclusive culture that sustains mean- ingful work. Employers have a responsibility to nurture an inclusive culture that can transfer to a remote work environment and that instills a sense of purpose, community, and belongingness (Adawiyah and Pramuka 2017; Bailey et al. 2019).

There is concern that a remote environment results in a change to the culture. However, organizations that have been most successful at remote work have developed new cultures that support the new work environment (Harrington and Santiago 2006). Although more research is needed to study the culture after the transition to remote work, implications suggest that the remote work environment ‘must be flexible, less bureaucratic, and rational (outcomes-based) but have procedures in place that support the virtual work arrangement’ (Harrington and Santiago 2006, 3). Furthermore,

146 M. Y. BYRD

translating and transferring an existing culture to a completely remote one goes beyond technology (Johnson 2020). Rather, it translates to understanding human needs and relationships, and recognizing how the work itself fulfills a sense of contribution to the good of the collective (Charalampous et al. 2019). Such challenges can directly affect engagement and performance outcomes. To respond to these challenges, organizations will need to develop new approaches to leadership that not only fulfills its new purpose but represents and sustains a culture of inclusion (Randel et al. 2018). One such approach is Inclusive Leadership (Booysen 2014; Bourke and Dillon 2018; Randel et al. 2018; Ryan 2006; Tapia and Polonskaia 2020). Inclusive Leadership is an emerging philosophical, humanistic relational, leadership approach (You et al. 2020) that serves as an appropriate response to the challenges impacting the organizational culture that have emerged from remote work.

Culture plays a significant role in how organizations function and how people respond to unexpected change to the norm. Individuals and groups connected in a mutually reinforcing system that practices inclusion through an organization<a- pos;>s culture are the foundation for an inclusive culture (Ferdman 2014). However, an organization<apos;>s culture can produce barriers to inclusion and allow exclu- sion to take root (Nkomo 2014).

Inclusion is an aspect of an organization<apos;>s culture that is particularly vulner- able to unexpected change. Although an organization<apos;>s culture does not have to take a drastic blow from a shift to a remote work environment, the problem is that inclusion is a proverbial, ongoing, organizational dilemma (Winters 2014). How a person responds is affected by an individual<apos;>s interpretation of their organization<apos; >s culture (Mor-Barak and Cherin 1998). Deeper insight into the inclusion-exclusion continuum is necessary to understand how a remote work environment influences engagement in meaningful work, contributes to a sense of belongingness, and has the potential to sustain social injustice.

A culture of inclusion or is it exclusion?

Organizations with leaders who demonstrate a positive attitude towards diversity will most likely ensure a culture of inclusion as an organizational goal (Booysen 2014). A culture of inclusion implies wholeness and develops around quality relationships with others in the workplace (Pless and Maak 2004). Inclusion is typically addressed as a positive social construct (Chung et al. 2020). Cultures that embrace inclusion and belongingness generate feelings of loyalty, satisfaction, and workplace happiness. Belongingness is the ‘degree to which employees feel a part of critical organizational processes such as access to information and resources, involvement in work groups and the ability to influence the decision-making process’ (Mor Barak and Cherin 1998, 48). As a socialized construct, belongingness is the need for ‘frequent and pleasant inter- personal interactions in the context of stable and enduring framework of affective concern for each other<apos;>s welfare’ (Baumeister and Leary 1995, 497).

Exclusion, a negative social construct, obstructs or acts as a barrier to feelings of inclusion and belongingness and offers a counter view of inclusion (Burchardt, Le Grand, and Piachaud 2002).To appreciate inclusion, it is necessary to recognize how exclusion makes people feel. Exclusion is a denial of the right to participate in normal relationships

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 147

and activities available to those who may claim power and privilege over another (Levitas et al, 2007; Mathieson et al. 2008). In today<apos;>s diverse workforce, exclusion is both a reality and a perception experienced by individuals who feel they are not viewed as an integral part of the organization (Mor Barak 2015). Furthermore, a person experiences exclusion if the inability to participate in activities is beyond his or her control (Burchardt, Le Grand, and Piachaud 2002; Lloyd-Jones 2014). Exclusionary practices have the potential to derail an organization<apos;>s inclusive goals in a remote environment.

Building an inclusive remote work environment ‘requires a deep understanding of the taken-for-granted ways that organizations and societies create exclusion’ (Nkomo 2014, 585). The problem is that scholars have not probed deeply into the fundamental, embedded, and taken for granted assumptions of the culture that maintain exclusion (Nkomo 2014). Highlighting exclusion leads to questioning, challenging, and critiquing ways that social injustices can remain hidden in an organization<apos;>s culture (Byrd 2018). ‘Exclusion from social relationships relates to non-participation in activities, the extent and quality of social networks, and the support people can call upon routinely and in crisis’ (Millar 2007, 4).

An existing culture of inclusion is critical to the transfer of work to a remote environment. Organizational leaders tend to assume that the organizational culture that exists or existed in a traditional work environment extends to a remote work environment (De Menezes and Kelliher 2017). An abrupt exodus from a traditional work environment to a remote one risks diminishing an organization<apos;>s culture (Howard-Grenville 2020. The result is an environment with a weakened human connection, which erodes relationships and intensifies feelings of exclusion unless leaders take the appropriate actions to sustain it (Attfield, Aaron Barth, and Barth 2021).

According to Schnell, Höge, and Pollet (2013), a high affective commitment to one<apos;>s employers is characterized by relationships based on trust, respect, partici- pative support, and a culture that is representative of diversity. Employers will need to be sensitive and insightful of ways to preserve their organization<apos;>s culture for vulnerable and underrepresented individuals (Howard-Grenville 2020). A traditional view of an inclusive culture is ‘an environment where employees are valued, secured, supported and respected’ (Pattnaik and Kesari Jena 2021, 9). Cultures that have been linked to inclusion ‘thrive and evolve when they are cohesive’ (Howard-Grenville 2020, 3) and when the work is more centralized. Although a culture of inclusion is necessarily concerned with issues of fairness and equity, in remote work environments it is also focused on the psychological needs of being considered part of the whole organization (Belle, Burley, and Long 2015).

Building an inclusive culture is ongoing and requires constant refining so that multiple voices are recognized and acknowledged. The challenge for leadership is sustaining a culture of inclusion that does not revert to exclusionary and biased practices that can be difficult to detect in a remote work environment. Inclusion represents an individua- l<apos;>s feelings of involvement in meaningful work and participation in work groups that contribute to critical organizational processes (Mousa et al. 2021). Feelings of belongingness while at work and among colleagues is fundamental to engaging in meaningful work (Attfield, Barth, and Barth 2021). Organizational leaders will need to

148 M. Y. BYRD

rethink how a culture of exclusion has the potential to impact an individual<apos;>s performance and reimagine how workers’ commitment to meaningful work contributes to the greater good (Liu 2021).

Meaningful work in a remote work environment

Given that meaningful work has been debated in various ways as it relates to human resource development (Bailey et al. 2019), this article will focus on meaningful work as it relates to unity with others, identifying others with similar values, and being able to articulate values that emphasize action in the performance of work responsibilities and duties (Lips-Wiersma and Morris 2009). Meaningful work is an inclusive state of being that reflects the purpose of one<apos;>s life through the activities of the work itself and the relationship developed between the individual and the place where the work is performed (Chalofsky 2003, 2010). An organization that is committed to an inclusive culture positively influences meaningful work (Mousa et al. 2021). Meaningful work has been associated to life domains that denote connectedness and belonging to something larger than the self. People who view their work as meaningful believe they are contributing to a greater organizational purpose and view their work within the greater good as being significant and important (Steger, Dik, and Duffy 2012). Comparable to deriving meaning from life, ‘meaning in work is defined as a sense of coherence, direction, significance, and belonging in the working life’ (Schnell, Höge, and Pollet 2013, 1). Given the changes in the nature of work and the shift of the context of where work takes place, reimagining meaningful work in terms of an inclusive culture is appropriate.

The concept of meaningful work has inspired researchers from various disciplines to search for conceptual clarification and in fact attempt to refine theoretical and metho- dological approaches that explain how meaningful work is expressed at work (Ghadi, Fernando, and Caputi 2015; You et al. 2020). In the field of human resource develop- ment, significant research has explored meaningful work in relation to wholeness of self (Chalofsky 2003, 2010); link to employee engagement (Fairlie 2011); expression of spirituality (Kuchinke 2013; Ul-Haq 2020), and a component of the work-life balance system (Munn 2013); to name a few.

While it is not uncommon for individuals to encounter workplace changes that challenge their sense of meaningfulness at work, scant attention has focused on how these individuals navigate rapid, unexpected change and disruption to routines (Jiang 2021). In the wake of an emerging crisis and disruption to the organization<apos;>s culture, sustaining meaningful work means adopting a situational purpose (sense- making) that aligns work with the new organizational mission. People derive meaning from their work based on interactions with others. If not properly managed, the loss of meaning derived from work could cause disengagement. Moreover, remote workers often desire interpersonal networking and developmental activities that are not readily available in a remote working environment and as a result experience greater social isolation (Charalampous et al. 2019). Given that performance is, to a large extent, a function of how an individual feels in reaction to their environment at any point in time, isolation may contribute to decreased performance (Ashkanasy and Dorris 2017; Harrington and Santiago 2006). Overcoming social isolation during a crisis event and

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 149

engaging in meaningful work is primarily a key leadership challenge (Antonacopoulou and Georgiadou 2021). A problem is that leaders may not have the competencies for engaging with and developing employees in a remote environment.

Another consideration is performing meaningful work that contributes to the collec- tive. Social interaction or support and group membership is critical to meaningful work (You et al. 2020). People gain meaning from being part of an organization that is characterized by a socio-moral (social and moral) climate (Schnell, Höge, and Pollet 2013). A socio-moral climate influences a culture that is ‘open, appreciative, collabora- tive, facilitates feelings of belonging and, thus, a sense of meaning in work’ (Schnell, Höge, and Pollet 2013, 5). Social and moral emotions such as belongingness and the desire for approval and acceptance are self-regulating emotions that tend to create and sustain social relationships (Fiske 2002). Meaningful work is ‘significant, directed, coherent with life goals, and [contributes] to a sense of belonging’ (Schnell, Höge, and Pollet 2013, 548). Bailey et als (2019) extensive review of meaningful work highlighted work relationships as a fundamental feature of meaningful work.

Although creating meaning from work in remote environments implies the subjective nature of work, nonetheless, performing work and deriving meaning from work is influenced by context (Schnell, Höge, and Weber 2019). The study conducted by Schnell, Hoge, and Weber highlighted how workers’ sense of meaning in their work is largely subjective but is impacted by different contexts. Remote work contexts where there are limited interactions with a supervisor may influence meaningfulness of work to a lesser extent as opposed to environments where there are more frequent interactions during the day (Ellis et al. 2019). As part of reimagining an inclusive remote work culture, leadership competencies that will motivate and enhance an individual to produce mean- ingful work (Ghadi, Fernando, and Caputi 2015) will need to be developed. Lysova et al. (2019) concluded that employees’ sense of meaningfulness can be cultivated in work contexts that are characterized by interpersonal closeness, belonging and togetherness.

The affective nature of belongingness

Remote work has created new barriers to the workplace culture that builds belonging and instead has produced social isolation, imbalances in communication, disconnected relationships, and challenges to work/life integration (Attfield and Barth, 2021). An unexplored aspect of the shift to remote work and its impact on an inclusive culture are the affective components. Affective components are an individual<apos;>s ‘emotional attachment as well as identification with and involvement in the organization’ (Ashkanasy and Dorris 2017, 69). Belongingness is an affective response to an unex- pected event or situation that may be perceived as a threat or an opportunity. When organizations need to respond swiftly to unexpected events, those with positive, affective, inclusive cultures may be willing to take more risks (Ashkanasy and Dorris 2017).

Belongingness is a deeply embedded and fundamental human need that is essential to motivation (Maslow 1954). Moreover, it means experiencing the feeling of being seen for unique contributions, connected to and supported by others, and being valued for participating in the organization<apos;>s purpose (Kennedy 2021). Moreover, belong- ingness is a subjective feeling of value, respect, and connectedness that an individual derives from a reciprocal relationship based on shared experiences and beliefs (Mahar,

150 M. Y. BYRD

Cobigo, and Stuart 2013). These feelings are ‘grounded to the context or referent group, to whom one chooses, wants and feels permission to belong’ (Mahar, Cobigo, and Stuart 2013, 1). The environment may hinder or promote the complex interactions and dynamics that occur.

People experience belongingness as being valued and needed in respect to other people and groups which leads to an experience of fitting in (Hagerty and Patusky 1995; Jena and Pradham 2018). Human need is based on frequent, ongoing, non- aversive interactions within a relational bond (Baumister and Leary 1995). People form relationships for various reasons and under certain conditions and situations (Hinojosa, Shaine, and McCauley 2020). When the relational bond is broken or dissolved, they often retreat to a safe haven within themselves (Hazan and Shaver 1992). Reciprocity and connectedness are essential to a sense of belongingness.

There are numerous variables that impact how a person experiences belongingness, in particular, their social identity (race, class, gender, age, etc.) (McClure and Brown 2008). Social identity adds to the dynamics and complexities of how people experience belong- ingness. Therefore, organizations that have emphasized a culture of belongingness prior to a shift to remote work, have created a space to operationalize goals of humanity that can build a bridge for greater empathy and inclusion of marginalized groups (Kennedy and Jain-Link 2021).

In a traditional workspace, belongingness is recognized for contributions, staying connected to co-workers, and being supported in daily work. When employees yearn for social needs, a strong organizational culture will respond with the values and norms an individual needs to help them overcome feelings of loneliness and isolation (Jerome 2013). In a remote setting, being visible in a remote setting is an ongoing challenge for remote workers (Dery and Halfermatz 2016). The need to belong is contingent upon two conditions (Baumeister and Leary 1995). First, an individual needs frequent contact or interaction with others. Second, the individual needs to ‘perceive that there is an inter- personal bond or relationship marked by stability, affective concern, and continuation into the foreseeable future’ (Baumeister and Leary 1995, 500). Working independently in a remote work environment can be detrimental to a sense of belongingness (Yarberry and Sims 2021). Given that belongingness is a feeling of being included in someone else<apos; >s space, counter-acting feelings of isolation and detachment are challenges for leaders. Individuals who had infrequent contact or relationships with colleagues prior to being shifted to a remote work environment are likely to be at a greater risk for experiencing exclusion (Holt-Lunstad 2021). In contrast to the traditional workspace, workers in remote environments are more susceptible to the consequences of disengagement.

It might be presumed that the willingness and motivation to perform is ‘experienced as fulfilling and meaningful when exerted with a sense of belonging’ (Schnell, Höge, and Weber 2019, 165). ‘Employees without close or supportive relationships at work are more likely to feel disconnected from their jobs and that can affect their performance’ (Pyrillis 2018, para 4). Hence, relationships significantly influence how people connect to their work space. As a component of performance, belonging is experienced when individuals work together in both formal and informal relationships (Filstad, Traavik, and Gorli 2019). Belonging is more than being with others in a workspace, it is the experience of doing work together. As the people who shape the organization<apos;>s culture of belongingness, leaders are the most visible representative for building belongingness in

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 151

a remote work environment (Kennedy 2021). The challenge for leadership is to establish communal feelings of affiliation and re-strengthen bonds that enhances engagement of remote employees (Pattnaik and Kesari Jena 2021). Another leadership challenge is building human relations in a remote culture and recognizing the potential for social injustice to disrupt a culture of belongingness.

Potential source to breed social injustice

The shift to a remote work environment has the potential to deepen the experience of exclusion for groups who are already marginalized by social identity. As a result, exclu- sionary practices could infiltrate a remote work environment and produce acts of social injustice. Social injustice is the repression of one<apos;>s rights to full participation (Booysen 2014; Byrd 2018). Moreover, diversity adds another layer of invisibility and consequently bias and discrimination. When individuals act upon their biases, an exclusive culture could occur. Proponents of an inclusive culture believe that inclusion is simply a matter of integrating diverse, underrepresented, and marginalized popula- tions into an already existing culture (Ryan 2006). However, exclusion is a more critical way to examine diversity as it allows one to question, critique, and challenge unfair practices (Opotow 1990).

One way that an exclusive culture is maintained is through an organization<apos;>s social networks. Social networks can operate in the form of gatekeeping by granting visibility to some while relegating others to a state of invisibility (Byrd 2018). In a remote work environment, circumventing certain individuals and groups could be sustained through exclusive communication practices. Being vulnerable to exclusion in a remote environment increases given that management can easily bypass or leave these groups out of the communication loop (Ferdman 2014). If the existing culture does not equip marginalized groups with the resources needed for full and equal participation, or the means to acquire them, the status quo will transfer to the new work environment. It is therefore critical that leaders are sensitive of marginalization as a force for repressing an individual<apos;>s right to full participation regardless of their perceived identity, life- style, or cultural expression (Booysen 2014). Embedded within the topic of the organi- zation<apos;>s culture are biases and prejudices formed from perceptions of social identity (Byrd 2018). Bullying and harassment of underrepresented groups has moved from physical actions to technology-based actions in the form of hostile emails, open attacks or berating during group video meetings, or refusing to acknowledge individuals from these groups in remote meetings (Project Include 2021).

The underlying, basic assumptions of an organization<apos;>s culture are crucial to the experiences of socially marginalized groups in a remote work environment. An organization<apos;>s basic assumptions are derived from espoused values and practices (Schein 1990). Organizations that espouse values of inclusion toward socially margin- alized groups yet in reality, operate to exclude those considered as different, presents a challenge for organizational leaders to build an inclusive, remote work culture. An inclusive culture should represent positive, supportive human relations that protect underrepresented, socially marginalized groups against micro-aggressive behaviors. ‘A central requirement of human relations is working with those with whom we differ to make a goodness of life for all’ (Millard 1962, 230). However, an inclusive culture has not

152 M. Y. BYRD

been strongly linked to fairness and justice outcomes (Nkomo 2014). At the micro level, an inclusive workplace alleviates the needs of socially marginalized groups (Booysen 2014; Mor Barak 2016). This means that these groups are sought out because of their difference in a way that ‘differences of all types become integrated into the fabric of the [organization] such that they become a part of necessary part of doing its everyday work’ (Holvino, Ferdman, and Merrill-Sands Holvino 2004, 248).

Organizational leaders are challenged to take a stance against unjust practices that inhibit full participation for socially marginalized groups. Traditional leadership approaches have supported a power over ideology that enables power holders to dominate, exploit, and oppress historically socially marginalized groups (Ryan 2006). Furthermore, traditional organizational structures and leadership behaviors enable individuals and groups that have historically-bound sources of power to dominate, oppress, and exploit individuals and groups who have historically lacked access to sources of power (Booysen 2014). An inclusive, remote workplace environment requires a type of leader who rejects the traditional hierarchical approaches, has the courage to take action against practices and policies that sustain marginalization, and advocate for said practices and policies that grant equal, just, and fair participa- tion (Ryan 2007).

Inclusive leadership: a framework for a remote inclusive culture

Leadership must be a humanistic endeavor to respond to people-centered problems (Booysen 2014). Organizational outcomes occur because of the quality of the relation- ships among the people and the leader<apos;>s competency to negotiate collective solutions (Berger 2014). A variety of leadership approaches and frameworks that are not yet known beyond a narrow circle of critical scholars have emerged in the last few years (Ardichvili and Manderscheid 2008) that are suitable to the problem. The shift to remote work and the potential impacts to the organization<apos;>s culture as presented in this article are examples of ways that the world of work has challenged traditional leadership practice to consider the inclusive nature of the organization<apos;>s culture. In an inclusive spirit, proponents of inclusive leadership approaches favor collaborative, reciprocal relationships and reject the more traditional, hierarchical arrangements of leadership (Ryan 2007).

Inclusive leadership is an emerging, philosophical leadership approach that encom- passes a more humanistic approach than traditional approaches (You 2020). It is person- centered rather than organizational centered and considers the needs of people as paramount to creating an inclusive culture (Amin, Till, and McKimm 2018). Key features of a person-centered, inclusive leadership framework include: the role of the leader as a change agent, specific leader competencies and behaviors, and inclusive leadership skills and relational practices.

The role of the inclusive leader

The changing landscape of work requires a leader who is culturally competent in creating an inclusive remote work environment. As a philosophical leadership approach, inclusive leadership fosters a culture that seeks to minimize harm to those who are impacted by

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 153

forces beyond their control. While shifting work to a remote environment challenges leaders to reimagine relationships across remote workspaces, a critical concern of the inclusive leader should be developing an awareness of the vulnerability of socially marginalized who may experience another layer of inequity and exclusion. Therefore, inclusive leaders are agents of social change; however, inclusive leadership is possible only when leaders recognize existing structures and commonly held assumptions that perpetuate inequity and exclusion (Berger 2014).

The role of the inclusive leader is to focus on: 1) relationships and networks of reciprocal social interactions; 2) participation and collaboration, 3) the collective – us and all, and 4) pursuing multiple voices and perspectives (Booysen 2014). Fundamental to the inclusive leadership approach is basic human need and the ability to have frequent, interactions with others that take place in a stable and enduring context of care and concern (Baumeister and Leary 1995). Managing worker isolation within remote working environment is a challenging task and requires leaders who demonstrate an ethic of care and concern (McGuire, Germain, and Reynolds 2021). However, while supporting an environment of care and concern is fundamental, a leader<apos;>s competency to make difficult deci- sions and model behaviors of equity, fairness, and impartiality are additional features that characterize an inclusive leadership framework.

Leader competencies and behaviors

Inclusive leadership involves specific competencies and behaviors that pushes the leader<apos;>s thinking beyond mere participation but responding to the work experience itself. Furthermore, an inclusive leadership approach applies a set of leader competencies and behaviors that are focused on ‘facilitating group members feeling part of the group (belongingness) and retaining their sense of individuality (uniqueness) while contributing to group processes and outcomes’ (Randel et al. 2018, 191).

Six signature traits of inclusive leadership highlight competencies and behaviors that are not strongly emphasized in traditional notions of leaders: visible commit- ment, humility, awareness of bias, curiosity about others, cultural intelligence, and effective collaboration (Bourke and Espedido 2020). These leadership competencies and behaviors explain how traditional, hierarchical, management-oriented notions of leadership need to change toward more horizontal, collaborative, relationship-driven approaches for collective and social justice outcomes of equity, fairness, and impar- tiality (Ryan 2007). While leader competencies and behaviors are critical for deci- sion-making purposes and modeling inclusive behaviors, developing inclusive leadership skills and building the capacity to enact inclusion through relational practices is an ongoing process of leader development.

Inclusive leadership skills and relational practice

This article presented four leadership challenges for sustaining an inclusive remote workplace culture: recognizing the destructive nature of exclusion, supporting meaningful work, establishing a sense of belongingness, and being sensitive to the

154 M. Y. BYRD

potential for perpetuating social injustice. Effectively responding to these challenges requires developing the leader<apos;>s capacity to shift from an individualistic way of thinking and knowing to a relational approach that incorporates other perspec- tives and ultimately provides new ways to assess situations and offer solutions (Wasserman 2014).

Tapia and Polonskaia (2020) recommend that inclusive leadership skills should pre- pare leaders to:

● take a collaborative and facilitative approach as opposed to one characterized by command and control,

● operate transparently rather than behind closed doors, ● demonstrate cultural agility, not tied to a personal worldview, ● fully embrace and leverage the vast diversity of today<apos;>s workforce, and ● create a safe space, regardless of what is happening externally, where people feel

accepted and empowered to give the best of their talents.

Moreover, inclusive leadership skills involve developing the leader<apos;>s capacity to question established, taken for granted notions of what constitutes the norm and re- evaluating existing leadership practices that have sustained a culture of exclusion (Ferdman 2014).

Given that leadership is enacted across multiple levels of an organization<apos; >s system, inclusive leaders need to develop the capacity to enact relational practices in multiple contexts (Gallegos 2014). Relational practice is characterized by the leader<apos;>s ability to build an environment of collaboration, active communication, trust, respect, and equal participation for all with a focus on shared outcomes (Booysen 2014). Inclusive leaders influence four relational prac- tices that are essential to a person-centered leadership approach. These practices span the related, but distinct dimensions of self, others, team, and organization (Dillon and Sable 2020):

● Self: embrace difference ● Others: empower diversity of talent ● Team: enable different perspectives ● Organization: embed diversity and inclusion throughout the system

Because the context for inclusive leadership has been expanded to the remote work environment, adaptive approaches for executing relational practice in these contexts will need to be considered (Bourke and Espedido 2020).

Inclusive leadership frameworks that are supported by humanistic, person-centered principles are promising for helping leaders to better understand the impacts of the changed landscape of work and ultimately create a more inclusive remote working environment. A shift to more person-centered frameworks further suggests that leader- ship development programs will need to incorporate principles of inclusion that support the unique needs of remote workers and instill new norms for an inclusive culture. Equally important, these frameworks should help leaders to identify areas of self-growth and development needed to reinforce a culture of inclusion.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 155

Implications for human resource development research, theory, and practice

This article has highlighted challenges relating to sustaining an inclusive culture in remote work environments. This topic should be of interest to HRD researchers, scholars, and practitioners for several reasons. First, human resource development practitioners should be looking for new approaches to leadership and consequently new ways to develop leaders in response to the changing landscape of work (Ardichvili and Manderscheid 2008). Often these approaches are ‘right in front of us and need to be acknowledged, researched, and/ or challenged; at other times, these methods may be embedded in other disciplines’ (628).

Second, responding to the changing landscape of work means that the field of HRD must be involved with other disciplines that study the emotional and psychological effects of remote work on individual performance (e. g. organizational behavior, psychology, business ethics, human resource management). A number of HRD scholars (Ruona 2016; Torraco 2005; Wang 2019), to name a few, have encouraged the field of HRD to explore the transdisciplinary nature of human resource development and collaborate with other disciplines to solve real work problems. The complexity of the present world requires more than one discipline to solve current problems (Hill 2014). Ultimately the goal is to equip people (not disadvantage them) to overcome barriers to performing work, sustain their performance, and maintain their ability to develop and grow.

Third is the significance of developing leaders toward inclusive leadership practice and the readiness to respond to crises that impact the organization<apos;>s culture. Yeager and Callahan’s (2016) study on the foundations of emerging leader identity development inform the theme of this article in understanding how factors such as culture, the quality of the relationships with others, motives of the individual, and the role of developmental contexts contribute to the development of leadership practice. Developing leaders to respond to events like a global pandemic requires a leader who has the competency to quickly make sense of situations and consider (among other priorities) an employ- ee<apos;>s emotional stability (Dirani et al. 2020).

Fourth, working with scholar-practitioners is necessary to bridge the research to practice divide. Contributions to the body of the literature (e. g. inclusive leadership) should represent knowledge building rather than knowledge-competing strategies. Furthermore, integrated perspectives and knowledge sharing could help to reduce theoretical and definitional ambiguities (e. g. meaningful work) and produce a more unified guide for practice (Maheshkar 2016). However, such efforts should be done with a focus on rigor and relevance (Brown and Latham 2018).

Fifth, in a remote work environment, socially marginalized individuals may experi- ence social injustices that are detrimental to their career development (Byrd 2015). Human resource development practitioners should advocate for career-related policies that respond to the needs of vulnerable populations (Park, Jeong, and Seok Chai 2021) and develop strategies that are ‘informed by ethical values and social and moral responsibility’ (McGuire, Germain, and Reynolds 2021, 30). One such approach, an ethics of care, suggests that discourse on moral responsibility in organizations should be characterized by concern and care for people and emphasize the value of their social relationships (Gilligan 1993). Adopting an ethics of care approach creates space for

156 M. Y. BYRD

conversations of social injustice and ways that power imbalances can disadvantage some individuals in a remote working environment (McGuire, Germain, and Reynolds 2021). Shifting conversations to an ethics of care brings a humanitarian principle to HRD where concern for learning and development can align with a concern for welfare of the people (Byrd 2018).

Finally, inclusive leadership was introduced in this article as a leadership approach for responding to the topic of sustaining an inclusive culture in remote work environments. This novel approach brings a new perspective not only to HRD leadership interventions but to the leadership literature that informs HRD research. Traditional leadership approaches are organizational focused and identify leader behaviors that can produce specific organizational outcomes; whereas inclusive leadership was described in this article as using a humanistic, relational approach to evolve, nurture, and sustain colla- borative relationships (Booysen 2014). Developing leaders goes beyond developing individuals to assume organizational roles. Rather, it pays ‘increased attention to con- textual factors and larger systemic and environmental influences’ (Ardichvili and Manderscheid 2008, 279) that have challenged leaders to look for ways to solve new workplace problems. Human resource development has been and will continue to play a major role in leadership development. As a community of researchers, scholars, and practitioners, this role requires that we stay abreast of the events and problems that are challenging our traditional ways of thinking and responding to crises.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to consider how a culture of inclusion and belongingness sustains meaningful work in a remote work environment. Key impacts on the organiza- tion<apos;>s culture considered in this article were the inclusion/exclusion continuum, worker engagement in meaningful work, the affective nature of belongingness, and the potential to breed social injustice. Creating a culture of inclusion is dependent upon multiple variables and considerations that are organizational specific. However, a common challenge that organizational leaders will face is reimagining the culture in response to the dilemmas being experienced by the organization<apos;>s workers. The leadership challenge is knowing how to transfer a culture of inclusion to remote envir- onments that embraces meaningful work, fosters a feeling of belonginess and need, and ensures equity, justice, and pro-diversity outcomes.

Inclusive leadership is an emerging approach that shows promise as a humanistic, relational approach to leadership that can offer an appropriate response.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

Adawiyah, W. R., and B. Agus Pramuka. 2017. “Scaling the Notion of Islamic Spirituality in the Workplace.” Journal of Management Development 36 (7): 877–898. doi:10.1108/JMD- 11-2014-0153.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 157

Alexandre, A., and S. V. Manderscheid. 2008. “Emerging Practices in Leadership Development: An Introduction.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 10 (5): 619–631. doi:10.1177/ 1523422308321718.

Alvesson, M. 1990. “On the Popularity of Organizational Culture.” Acta Sociologica 33 (1): 31–49. doi:10.1177/000169939003300103. Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Amin, M., A. Till, and J. McKimm. 2018. “Inclusive and Person-Centred Leadership: Creating a Culture that Involves Everyone.” British Journal of Hospital Medicine 79 (7): 402–407. doi:10.12968/hmed.2018.79.7.402. London, England : 2005.

Antonacopoulou, E. P., and A. Georgiadou. 2021. “Leading through Social Distancing: The Future of Work, Corporations and Leadership from Home.” Gender, Work, and Organization 28 (2): 749–767. doi:10.1111/gwao.12533.

Ashkanasy, N. M., and A. D. Dorris. 2017. “Emotions in the Workplace.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4 (2017): 67–90. doi:10.1146/annurev- orgpsych-032516-113231.

Attfield, B., B. Aaron Barth, and A. Barth (2021). “The Impact of Remote Work on Inclusion”. https:// The_impact_of_remote_work_on_inclusion.pdf (jostle.me )

Bailey, C., R. Yeoman, A. Madden, M. Thompson, and G. Kerridge. 2019. “A Review of the Empirical Literature on Meaningful Work: Progress and Research Agenda.” Human Resource Development Review 18 (1): 83–113. doi:10.1177/1534484318804653.

Baumeister, R. F., and M. R. Leary. 1995. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117 (3): 497. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497-529.

Belle, S. M., D. L. Burley, and S. D. Long. 2015. “Where Do I Belong? High-Intensity Teleworkers’ Experience of Organizational Belonging.” Human Resource Development International 18 (1): 76–96. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.979006.

Berger, J. B. 2014. “Leadership: A Concise Conceptual Overview.” Center for International Education Faculty Publications. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cie_faculty_pubs/18

Booysen, L. 2014. “The Development of Inclusive Leadership Practice and Processes.” In Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion, edited by B. Ferdman and B. R. Deane, 296–329. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bourke, J., and B. Dillon. 2018. “The Diversity and Inclusion Revolution: Eight Powerful Truths.” Deloitte Review 22: 82–95.

Bourke, J., and A. Espedido. 2020. “The Key to Inclusive Leadership.” Harvard Business Review: 2–5. Brown, T. C., and G. P. Latham. 2018. “Maintaining Relevance and Rigor: How We Bridge the

Practitioner–scholar Divide within Human Resource Development [Editorial].” Human Resource Development Quarterly 29 (2): 99–105. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21308.

Burchardt, T., J. Le Grand, and D. Piachaud. 2002. “Degrees of Exclusion: Developing a Dynamic, Multidimensional Measure.” In Understanding Social Exclusion, edited by J. Hills, G. Le, Julian, and D. Piachaud, 30–43, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Byrd, M. Y. 2018. “Exploring the Relationship between the Organizational Culture and Diversity in the Workforce.” In Diversity in the Workforce, edited by M. Y. Byrd and C. L. Scott, 49–61. New York: Routledge.

Byrd, M. Y., and C. Hughes. 2015. “A Paradigm Shift for Diversity Management: From Promoting Business Opportunity to Optimizing Lived Career Work Experiences.” In Impact of Diversity on Organization and Career Development, edited by C. Hughes, 28–53. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-7324-3.ch002.

Carnevale, J. B., and I. Hatak. 2020. “Employee Adjustment and Well-being in the Era of COVID-19: Implications for Human Resource Management.” Journal of Business Research 116: 183–187. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.037.

Cathrine, F., L. E. M. Traavik, and M. Gorli. 2019. “Belonging at Work: The Experiences, Representations and Meanings of Belonging.” Journal of Workplace Learning 31 (2): 116–142. doi:10.1108/JWL-06-2018-0081.

Chalofsky, N. 2003. “An Emerging Construct for Meaningful Work.” Human Resource Development International 6 (1): 69–83. doi:10.1080/1367886022000016785.

158 M. Y. BYRD

Chalofsky, N. E. 2010. Meaningful Workplaces: Reframing How and Where We Work. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Charalampous, M., C. A. Grant, C. Tramontano, and E. Michailidis. 2019. “Systematically Reviewing Remote E-Workers’ Well-Being at Work: A Multidimensional Approach.” European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 28 (1): 51–73. doi:10.1080/ 1359432X.2018.1541886.

Chung, B. G., K. H. Ehrhart, L. M. Shore, A. E. Randel, M. A. Dean, and U. Kedharnath. 2020. “Work Group Inclusion: Test of a Scale and Model.” Group & Organization Management 45 (1): 75–102. doi:10.1177/1059601119839858.

Cindy, H., and P. R. Shaver. 1992. “Broken Attachments: Relationship Loss from the Perspective of Attachment Theory.” In Close Relationship Loss, edited by T. L. Orbuch, 90–108. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9186-9_5.

De, M., M. Lilian, and C. Kelliher. 2017. “Flexible Working, Individual Performance, and Employee Attitudes: Comparing Formal and Informal Arrangements.” Human Resource Management 56 (6): 1051–1070. doi:10.1002/hrm.21822.

Dery, K., and E. Hafermalz. 2016. “Seeing Is Belonging: Remote Working, Identity and Staying Connected.” In The Impact of ICT on Work, edited by J. Lee, 109–126. Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-612-6_6.

Dillon, B., and S. Caspi Sable. 2020. “Navigating Inclusion as a Leader: Lessons from the Field.” In Inclusive Leadership, edited by B. M. Ferdman, J. Prime, and R. E. Riggio, 379–393. New York: Routledge.

Dirani, K. M., M. Abadi, A. Alizadeh, B. Barhate, R. Capuchino Garza, N. Gunasekara, G. Ibrahim, and Z. Majzun. 2020. “Leadership Competencies and the Essential Role of Human Resource Development in Times of Crisis: A Response to Covid-19 Pandemic.” Human Resource Development International 23 (4): 380–394. doi:10.1080/13678868.2020.1780078.

Ellis, A. M., T. N. Bauer, B. Erdogan, and D. M. Truxillo. 2019. “Daily Perceptions of Relationship Quality with Leaders: Implications for Follower Well-Being.” Work and Stress 33 (2): 119–136. doi:10.1080/02678373.2018.1445670.

Eriksson, L., and H. Santesson. 2021. “Organizational Culture in a Remote Setting: A Qualitative Study on Organizational Culture and the Effects of Remote Work.” Unpublished Master’s thesis. Uppsala University

Evangelina, H., B. M. Ferdman, and D. Merrill-Sands. 2004. “Creating and Sustaining Diversity and Inclusion in Organizations: Strategies and Approaches.” In The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity, edited by M. S. Stockdale and F. J. Cosby, 245–276. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Fairlie, F. 2011. “Meaningful Work, Employee Engagement, and Other Key Employee Outcomes: Implications for Human Resource Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 13 (4): 508–525. doi:10.1177/1523422311431679.

Ferdman, B. M. 2014. “The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations: Toward a Systemic and Inclusive Framework.” In Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion, edited by B. Ferdman and B. R. Deane, 3–54. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Fiske, A. P. 2002. “Socio-Moral Emotions Motivate Action to Sustain Relationships.” Self & Identity 1 (2): 169–175. doi:10.1080/152988602317319357.

Gallegos, P. V. 2014. “The Work of Inclusive Leadership.” In Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion, edited by B. Ferdman and B. R. Deane, 177–202. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ghadi, M. Y., M. Fernando, and P. Caputi. 2015. “Describing Work as Meaningful: Towards a Conceptual Clarification.” Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 2 (3): 202–223. doi:10.1108/JOEPP-11-2014-0064.

Gilligan, C. 1993. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Goldman, A. S., and A. E. Sterling. 2020. “Becoming a Part while Apart: Building Professional Identity and Membership When Working and Learning Remotely.” International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning 21 (4): 387–399.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 159

Hagerty Bonnie, M. K., and K. Patusky. 1995. “Developing a Measure of Sense of Belonging.” Nursing Research 44 (1): 9–13.

Harrington, S. J., and J. Santiago. 2006. “Organizational Culture and Telecommuters’ Quality of Work Life and Professional Isolation.” Communications of the IIMA 6 (3): 1–10.

Hill, B. 2014. “Critical HRD—A Mithridate?” Advances in Developing Human Resources 16 (4): 407–416. doi:10.1177/1523422314544293.

Hinojosa, A. S., M. J. Doughty Shaine, and K. Davis Mccauley. 2020. “A Strange Situation Indeed: Fostering Leader–follower Attachment Security during Unprecedented Crisis.” Management Decision 58 (10): 2115.

Holt-Lunstad, J. 2021. “A Pandemic of Social Isolation?” World Psychiatry 20 (1): 55–56. doi:10.1002/wps.20839.

Howard-Grenville, J. 2020. “How to Sustain Your Organization’s Culture When Everyone Is Remote.” MIT Sloan Management Review 62 (1): 1–4.

Jena, L. K., and S. Pradhan. 2018. “Conceptualizing and Validating Workplace Belongingness Scale.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 31 (2): 451–462. doi:10.1108/JOCM-05-2017-0195.

Jerome, N. 2013. “Application of the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need Theory: Impacts and Implications on Organizational Culture, Human Resource and Employee’s Performance.” International Journal of Business and Management Invention 2 (3): 39–45.

Jiang, W. Y. 2021. “Sustaining Meaningful Work in a Crisis: Adopting and Conveying a Situational Purpose.” Administrative Science Quarterly 66 (3): 806–853. doi:10.1177/0001839221994049.

Johnson, E. 2020. “Building an Inclusive Culture in A Fully Remote Team: Rally Together to Make the Transition to A 100% Remote Environment.” Leadership Excellence 37 (7): 43–45.

Kennedy, J. T. 2021. “Belonging: The Secret to Building Engagement for Employees of All Backgrounds.” Leader to Leader 99: 45–51. doi:10.1002/ltl.20552.

Kennedy, J. T., and P. Jain-Link. 2021. “What Does It Take to Build a Culture of Belonging?” Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, June 1–6. https://hbr.org/2021/06/what-does-it-take- to-build-a-culture-of-belonging

Kuchinke, K. P. 2013. “Human Agency and HRD: Returning Meaning, Spirituality, and Purpose to HRD Theory and Practice.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 15 (4): 370–381. doi:10.1177/1523422313498563.

Lips-Wiersma, M., and L. Morris. 2009. “Discriminating between ‘Meaningful Work’ and the ‘Management of Meaning.’.” Journal of Business Ethics 88 (3): 491–511. doi:10.1007/S10551- 009-0118-9.

Liu, J. 2021. “When Workers Want to Stay Remote, Companies Will Have to Rethink Culture”. CNBC April 20. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/20/how-companies-will-have-to-rethink- culture-for-future-remote-workers.html

Lloyd-Jones, B. 2014. “African-American Women in the Professoriate: Addressing Social Exclusion and Scholarly Marginalization through Mentoring.” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 22 (4): 269–283. doi:10.1080/13611267.2014.945737.

Lysova, E. I., B. A. Allan, B. J. Dik, R. D. Duffy, and M. F. Steger. 2019. “Fostering Meaningful Work in Organizations: A Multi-level Review and Integration.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 110 (Part B): 374–389. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.004.

Mahar, A. L., V. Cobigo, and H. Stuart. 2013. “Conceptualizing Belonging.” Disability and Rehabilitation 35 (12): 1026–1032. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.717584.

Maheshkar, C. 2016. “HRD ‘Scholar-practitioner’: An Approach to Filling Theory, Practice and Research Gap.” In Bridging the Scholar-Practitioner Gap in Human Resources Development, edited by C. Hughes, and M. W. Gosney, 20–46. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). The instinctoid nature of basic needs. Journal of Personality, 22, 326–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1954.tb01136 .

Mathieson, J., J. Popay, E. Enoch, S. Escorel, M. Hernandez, H. Johnston, and L. Rispel. 2008. ““Social Exclusion Meaning, Measurement and Experience and Links to Health Inequalities: A Review of Literature.” WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network Background Paper 1: 91.

160 M. Y. BYRD

McClure, J. P., and J. M. Brown. 2008. “Belonging at Work.” Human Resource Development International 11 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1080/13678860701782261.

McGuire, D., M.-L. Germain, and K. Reynolds. 2021. “Reshaping HRD in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Ethics of Care Approach.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 23 (1): 26–40. doi:10.1177/1523422320973426.

Millar, J. 2007. “Social Exclusion and Social Policy Research: Defining Exclusion.” In Multidisciplinary Handbook of Social Exclusion Research, edited by D. Abrams, J. Christian, and D. Gordon, 1–16. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Millard, T. L. 1962. “Human Relations in a Changing Society, Trends and Principles.” Journal of Educational Sociology 35 (5): 228–235. doi:10.2307/2264569.

Mor-Barak, M. E. 2015. “Inclusion Is the Key to Diversity Management, but What Is Inclusion?” Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance 39 (2): 83–88.

Mor-Barak, M. E. 2016. Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Mor-Barak, M. E., and D. A. Cherin. 1998. “A Tool to Expand Organizational Understanding of Workforce Diversity: Exploring A Measure of Inclusion-Exclusion.” Administration in Social Work 22 (1): 47–64. doi:10.1300/J147v22n01_04.

Mousa, M., R. M. Ayoubi, H. K. Massoud, and W. Chaouali. 2021. “Workplace Fun, Organizational Inclusion and Meaningful Work: An Empirical Study.” Public Organization Review 21 (3): 393–408. doi:10.1007/s11115-020-00496-z.

Munn, S. L. 2013. “Unveiling the Work–life System: the Influence of Work–life Balance on Meaningful Work. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(4): 401–417.

Nkomo, S. 2014. “Old Wine in New Bottles.” In Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion, edited by B. Ferdman and B. R. Deane, 580–592. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Opotow, S. 1990. “Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction.” Journal of Social Issues 46 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00268.x.

Park, S., S. Jeong, and D. Seok Chai. 2021. “Remote e-Workers’ Psychological Well-being and Career Development in the Era of COVID-19: Challenges, Success Factors, and the Roles of HRD Professionals.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 23 (3): 222–236. doi:10.1177/ 15234223211017849.

Pattnaik, L., and L. Kesari Jena. 2021. “Mindfulness, Remote Engagement and Employee Morale: Conceptual Analysis to Address the ‘New Normal’.” International Journal of Organizational Analysis 29 (4): 873–890. doi:10.1108/IJOA-06-2020-2267.

Pless, N. M., and T. Maak. 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.

Project Include. (2021). “Remote Work since Covid-19 Is Exacerbating Harm: What Companies Need to Know and Do”. Report 0321. https://projectinclude.org/assets/pdf/Project-Include- Harassment-Report-0321-F3.pdf

Pyrillis, R. 2018. “Workplace Loneliness Is Sad for People and Bad for Business.” Workforce 97 (3): 18.

Randel, A. E., B. M. Galvin, L. M. Shore, K. Holcombe Ehrhart, B. G. Chung, M. A. Dean, and U. Kedharnath. 2018. “Inclusive Leadership: Realizing Positive Outcomes through Belongingness and Being Valued for Uniqueness.” Human Resource Management Review 28 (2): 190–203. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002.

Ruona, W. E. A. 2016. “Evolving Human Resource Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 18 (4): 551–565. doi:10.1177/1523422316660968.

Ruth, L., C. Pantazis, E. Fahmy, E. L.-R. David Gordon, E. Lloyd-Reichling, and D. Patsios. 2007. “The Multi-dimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion.” In Department of Sociology and School for Social Policy. Townsend Centre for the International Study of Poverty. Bristol, England: Bristol Institute for Public Affairs. University of Bristol.

Ryan, J. 2006. “Inclusive Leadership and Social Justice for Schools.” Leadership and Policy in Schools 5 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1080/15700760500483995.

Ryan, J. 2007. “Inclusive Leadership: A Review.” Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations 18 (1–2): 92–125.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 161

Schein, E. H. 1990. “Organizational Culture.” American Psychological Association 45 (2): 109–119. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109.

Schnell, T., T. Höge, and E. Pollet. 2013. “Predicting Meaning in Work: Theory, Data, Implications.” Journal of Positive Psychology 8 (6): 543–554. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.830763.

Shore, L. M., J. N. Cleveland, and D. Sanchez. 2018. “Inclusive Workplaces: A Review and Model.” Human Resource Management Review 28 (2): 176–189. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003.

Steger, M. F., B. J. Dik, and R. D. Duffy. 2012. “Measuring Meaningful Work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI).” Journal of Career Assessment 20 (3): 322–337. doi:10.1177/ 1069072711436160.

Strafel, E. 2021. “Beyond Diversity to Inclusion: Find and Eliminate the Real Barriers”. Chief Executive. https://chiefexecutive.net/beyond-diversity-to-inclusion-find-and-eliminate-the-real -barriers/

Tapia, A., and A. Polonskaia. 2020. The 5 Disciplines of Inclusive Leaders: Unleashing the Power of All of Us. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Tatjana, S., T. Höge, and W. G. Weber. 2019. “Belonging and Its Relationship to the Experience of Meaningful Work.” In The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work, edited by R. Yeoman, C. B. Bailey, A. Madden, and Thompson, 165–185, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Torraco, R. J. 2005. “Human Resource Development Transcends Disciplinary Boundaries.” Human Resource Development Review 4 (3): 251–253. doi:10.1177/1534484305278894.

Ul-Haq, S. 2020. “Spiritual Development and Meaningful Work: A Habermasian Critique.” Human Resource Development International 23 (2): 125–145. doi:10.1080/ 13678868.2019.1679570.

Wang, J. 2019. “Crossing Boundaries: How are We Doing in HRD?” Human Resource Development Review 18 (4): 407–410. doi:10.1177/1534484319878966.

Wasserman, I. C. 2014. “Strengthening Interpersonal Awareness and Fostering Relational Eloquence.” In Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion, edited by B. Ferdman and B. R. Deane, 128–154. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Winters, M.-F. 2014. “From Diversity to Inclusion: An Inclusion Equation.” In Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion, edited by B. Ferdman and B. R. Deane, 205–228. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Yarberry, S., and C. Sims. 2021. “The Impact of COVID-19-Prompted Virtual/Remote Work Environments on Employees’ Career Development: Social Learning Theory, Belongingness, and Self-Empowerment.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 23 (3): 237–252. doi:10.1177/ 15234223211017850.

Yeager, K. L., and J. L. Callahan. 2016. “Learning to Lead: Foundations of Emerging Leader Identity Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 18 (3): 286–300. doi:10.1177/1523422316645510.

You, J., S. Kim, K. Kim, A. Cho, and W. Chang. 2020. “Conceptualizing Meaningful Work and Its Implications for HRD.” European Journal of Training and Development 45 (1): 36–52. doi:10.1108/EJTD-01-2020-0005.

162 M. Y. BYRD

Copyright of Human Resource Development International is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.