1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belongingness are principal to the diversity management
practices that global organizations administer. Farndale et al. (2015) and Rahman et al. (2020)
argued that diversity is more than an American construct with demographic properties. Instead,
diversity encompasses culture, religion, psychology, and cognitive concepts (Farndale et al.,
2015; Rahman et al., 2020). The global framework of diversity within human resource
management includes subsets of diversity, creating the ideology of surface-level and deep-level
diversity, transcending the boundaries of the U.S. workforce (Bengtsson et al., 2020; Jansen &
Searle, 2021; Post et al., 2021; Rahman et al., 2020; Roh & Koo, 2019; Triana et al., 2021). Roh
and Koo (2019) contended that “diversity includes not only visible and easily observable
demographic dimensions, but also invisible and deep dimensions” (p. 247). This framework
provides researchers with an inclusive way to investigate how different diversity dimensions
shape multinational corporations (MNCs) in contemporary human resource management
(Farndale et al., 2015; Post et al., 2021; Triana et al., 2021).
Chapter 1 includes essential information about the study. It starts with the background,
explaining the significance of the research, the problem it focused on, and the purpose of the
study. The chapter introduces the conceptual and theoretical framework, which helped guide the
research. Chapter 1 concludes with research questions and definitions of key terms used in the
study.
Background
While extant research primarily focuses on surface-level diversity, deep-level diversity
provides insight to “expand the boundaries of diversity research” (Post et al., 2021, p. 2004).
Deep-level diversity enlarges the construct of diversity, creating inclusivity on a global scale
2
(Jansen & Searle, 2021). It represents the less-visible traits, embracing attitudes, sexual
orientation, socioeconomic status, cognition, religion, knowledge, values, and political
orientation (Bengtsson et al., 2020; Farndale et al., 2015; Jansen & Searle, 2021; Post et al.,
2021; Rahman et al., 2020; Roh & Koo, 2019; Triana et al., 2021). Understanding how
organizations can leverage deep-level diversity to foster inclusion through diversity management
practices is critical due to the continued increase in global mobility (Post et al., 2021).
Workplace inclusion serves as an essential element of a positive employee experience.
Since organizations, managers, and teams rely on employees to effectively perform their roles to
achieve overall business goals, workplace inclusion remains essential to employee success
(Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018). When employees perceive low workplace inclusion, they may
sense a lack of belonging or the inability to be their unique selves at work (Shore & Chung,
2023). Employees experiencing these deficiencies frequently underperform, adversely affecting
the business and the employee experience (Alexandra et al., 2021; Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018;
Downey et al., 2015).
Given the recent global increase in social justice initiatives, workplace inclusion stands
out as one of the most salient topics for immediate action by human resource management
professionals and corporate leadership (Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Brimhall et al., 2017;
Downey et al., 2015; Randel et al., 2018). Therefore, knowing how companies can make
everyone feel included at work holds the utmost importance in championing this phenomenon.
Companies can use positive psychology to influence workplace inclusion (Dolev-Amit et al.,
2021; Ghielen et al., 2018); the strengths-based approach using CliftonStrengths® is an
undervalued addition (Watkins et al., 2022; Welch et al., 2014).
3
The CliftonStrengths® assessment assists individuals in identifying their top five or all 34
talent themes. Traditionally, organizations use CliftonStrengths® for intervention-based
leadership or team development (Ding & Yu, 2022; Miglianico et al., 2020; Watkins et al.,
2022). Organizations often employ CliftonStrengths® to help employees identify their unique
talents and ways in which they can apply them to their current role and team to increase job
performance (Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2017; van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015; Watkins et al.,
2022). From a positive psychology perspective, employees who identify and use their strengths
in the workplace enhance their “sense of identity and personal worth” (Miglianico et al., 2020, p.
760). Thus, the leader’s role in influencing a culture of inclusion necessitates further
investigation (Shore & Chung, 2023).
One significant characteristic of an inclusive workplace falls within the leader’s pivotal
role in establishing an environment where uniqueness and belonging thrive, producing a positive
employee experience (Brimhall et al., 2017; Randel et al., 2018; Shore & Chung, 2023). The
underpinning model of leader inclusion and exclusion developed by Shore and Chung (2023)
provided a conceptual framework for this study. This model identifies how a leader’s
“inclusionary and exclusionary behaviors impact employees” perceptions of workplace inclusion
(Shore & Chung, 2023, p. 1). Additionally, Lewin’s (1947) change theory guided this study to
describe how an organization transforms how it communicates and interacts. Using a qualitative
grounded theory methodology, my focus in this study was to understand the benefits of an
alternative application of CliftonStrengths® in the context of deep-level diversity to increase
workplace inclusion.
4
Statement of the Problem
A dimension of diversity management that leaders influence, regardless of their
geographic location, involves creating an inclusive workforce in which employees feel a sense of
belonging and can be their unique selves, positively impacting their employee experience
(Alexandra et al., 2021; Brimhall et al., 2017; Randel et al., 2018). In the absence of leaders
manifesting inclusive workplaces, organizations risk higher turnover rates, disengaged
employees, jeopardized employee well-being, and diminished job performance (Brimhall et al.,
2017; Jankelová et al., 2022; Sinicropi & Cortese, 2021). Thus, leaders of MNCs must
understand how “leveraging the strengths of each employee brings value to the workforce,” and
the role individual employee strengths play in creating increased inclusion in MNCs (Jankelová
et al., 2022, p. 606).
The specific problem this research investigated involved how a U.S.-headquartered MNC
in the mobility industry can leverage the deep-level diversity associated with employees
CliftonStrengths® to increase the organization’s culture of inclusion. Triana et al. (2021)
categorized deep-level diversity into personality, values, thinking and cognitive styles, and
education variables. In this example, the CliftonStrengths® assessment aligns with deep-level
diversity as the 34 talent themes reflect derivatives of these variables describing “how a person
perceives, thinks, problem solves and learns, as well as how people relate to each other” (Triana
et al., 2021, p. 1843). Farndale et al. (2015) declared the burgeoning need to understand how
deep-level diversity contributes to organizational inclusiveness as organizations expand
operations outside the parent country, resulting in more MNCs.
This problem holds significant importance for the organization’s success as it expands its
workforce in each global region. As the workforce evolves, the organization must identify novel
5
ways of supporting a culture of inclusion to uphold employee retention, whereby employees feel
at ease and respected for their authentic selves. By conducting this investigation, the organization
can understand how the deep-level diversity of CliftonStrengths® can positively contribute to an
increase in perceived employee inclusion.
Purpose of the Study
My purpose in this qualitative grounded theory study was to describe how leaders can
nurture an inclusive environment using CliftonStrengths® and to provide suggestions for leaders
on ways to improve levels of organizational inclusion. Limited research investigates “ways in
which leaders establish an inclusionary work environment” (Shore & Chung, 2023, p. 1).
Similarly, most current CliftonStrengths® studies focus mainly on leadership development
interventions or how students benefit from understanding their strengths for academic success
(Allan et al., 2021; Watkins et al., 2022). This research contributed to the growing body of
knowledge on strengths-based interventions and how leaders contribute to creating inclusive
workplaces (Shore & Chung, 2023).
Human resource professionals continue to seek ways their organizations can improve
diversity management. Generally, the solutions human resource professionals encounter
represents the U.S. construct of diversity, limiting global application (Farndale et al., 2015;
Rahman et al., 2020). Since this study explored CliftonStrengths® as a deep-level diversity
dimension within an MNC, it provided a new perspective that previous research lacks.
Furthermore, using Lewin’s theory of change to describe the processes necessary for MNCs to
transform their diversity management practices expands the literature on workplace inclusion
(Burnes, 2020; Lewin, 1947). Finally, the results of this study may inform MNC human resource
6
practitioners, Gallup® organizations, and Gallup®-certified CliftonStrengths® coaches on the
value of using CliftonStrengths® to influence change and increase organizational inclusion.
Research Questions
This study described how using CliftonStrengths® in the context of deep-level diversity
can help organizations change and make the workplace more inclusive using a qualitative
research methodology. The following research questions influenced the research design, data
collection methodology, and data analysis to explore the problem further:
RQ1: How does associating CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity in the workplace
encourage a culture of inclusion in a U.S.-headquartered multinational corporation?
RQ2: How do leaders of multinational corporations influence organizational change to
increase inclusion using CliftonStrengths® in a U.S.-headquartered multinational corporation?
Definition of Key Terms
CliftonStrengths®. CliftonStrengths® serves as 177-question strengths-based assessment
Gallup® created to assist individuals in identifying their character traits (Rath & Conchie, 2008).
The name of the assessment evolved from the Clifton StrengthsFinder® into CliftonStrengths®
assessment in 2015 (Gallup, 2023a). Gallup®, CliftonStrengths® and the 34 CliftonStrengths®
Theme Names are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. This document also contains content that is
Copyright © 2000, Gallup, Inc. The non-Gallup information you are receiving has not been
approved and is not sanctioned or endorsed by Gallup in any way. Opinions, views, and
interpretations of CliftonStrengths® are solely the beliefs of Trapper K. Pace.
Deep-level diversity. Deep-level diversity encompasses the invisible diversity traits
inherent to all individuals. This term includes but is not limited to psychological attributes such
as thought and cognition, which are not observable (Jansen & Searle, 2021).
7
Diversity. Diversity in this study describes the amalgamation of surface- and deep-level
diversity traits representing an individual’s authentic self (Roh & Koo, 2019). Each term
independently holds great value in understanding how surface- and deep-level contribute to the
umbrella term of diversity.
Diversity management. Diversity management in the context of this study represents the
policies, practices, and procedures an organization administers for the advancement of surface-
and deep-level diversity, equity, inclusion, and belongingness within the organization to
positively impact the employee experience (Haque, 2021; Yadav & Lenka, 2020).
Inclusion. Shore et al. (2011) defined inclusion as the acceptance an individual perceives
in the workplace related to their uniqueness and sense of belonging. This study uses the term
independent of diversity (Shore et al., 2018).
Leadership. Leadership involves the ability to influence the efforts of others to achieve
individual, team, and organizational success. This process considers the uniqueness attributed to
each individual, recognizing their surface- and deep-level diversity to create a sense of belonging
(Mor Barak et al., 2016; Shore et al., 2011).
Surface-level diversity. Surface-level diversity describes the observable differences
among individuals. These differences include but are not limited to age, gender, ethnicity, and
physical features (Khan & Kalra, 2021).
Summary
Chapter 1 presented the background and importance of the study, including a synopsis of
the research proposal warranting the need to investigate and describe how MNCs can increase
workplace inclusion. This chapter introduced the research questions and key terms relevant to the
8
study. The purpose of the study demonstrated significance to the inclusion literature, responding
to contemporary researchers’ call to identify how leaders can influence workplace inclusion.
Chapter 2 provides a detailed literature review and insight into the differences between
diversity and inclusion. It further describes the importance of the distinction between the two
terms relative to diversity management in MNCs inclusion and how they separately influence
diversity management. Additionally, Chapter 2 offers an introduction and understanding of how
organizations traditionally use the CliftonStrengths® assessment, the value of using the
assessment in diversity management, and the critical role leaders have in influencing workplace
inclusion.
9
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to describe how leaders of a medium-sized U.S.-
headquartered multinational corporation within the mobility industry can transform team
dynamics within the workplace to foster a culture of inclusion using CliftonStrengths®.
Moreover, the investigation explored how positioning CliftonStrengths® as a dimension of deep-
level diversity contributes to diversity management practices. This qualitative grounded theory
study sought to answer the following research questions:
RQ1: How does associating CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity in the workplace
encourage a culture of inclusion in a U.S.-headquartered multinational corporation?
RQ2: How do leaders of multinational corporations influence organizational change to
increase inclusion using CliftonStrengths® in a U.S.-headquartered multinational corporation?
In this literature review I examine research on diversity management, workplace
diversity, workplace inclusion, and CliftonStrengths® to understand how each topic interrelates
to providing and sustaining change within an organization’s culture to support increased
inclusion levels. While emerging research extensively informs about diversity and inclusion
within global organizations, a paucity of research exists on how CliftonStrengths® can enhance
inclusion within the workplace. This study contributed to the body of knowledge on diversity
management by investigating how CliftonStrengths®, through the lens of deep-level diversity,
can contribute to organizational inclusion.
Literature Search Methods
Beginning in August 2020, I used Abilene Christian University’s online library
(Margarett and Herman Brown Library) to conduct peer-reviewed literature searches using the
OneSearch database within 5 years. Through trial and error and then with the assistance of the
10
associate dean for library services, the following pertinent search terms were identified: diversity
management, surface-level diversity, deep-level diversity, workplace diversity, workplace
inclusion, culture of inclusion, inclusive leadership, StrengthsFinder 2.0, StrengthsFinder, and
CliftonStrengths.
The initial literature investigation included searching the topics of diversity, diversity
management, inclusion, Clifton StrengthsFinder, and CliftonStrengths. It was necessary to use
the past and present names of the Gallup® assessment as previous literature uses the former
name, while current literature uses the modern name: CliftonStrengths®. With search results
providing a wide array of information, the focus shifted to dimensions of diversity, workplace
inclusion, and CliftonStrengths® within the workplace. When possible, I selected literature using
a global perspective to align with the construct of a multinational corporation.
Lewin’s Theory of Change
In today’s diverse and interconnected world, fostering inclusivity within MNCs has
become vital for organizational success. Achieving such transformation requires a well-defined
theoretical framework to guide leaders. Drawing on Lewin’s theory of change, I sought to
describe the change management process through the leadership lens. Lewin (1947) indicated
that for leaders to transform teams successfully, they must navigate organizational change using
a three-step change model consisting of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing.
In the context of fostering inclusivity, MNC leaders must first acknowledge the need for
transformation and the existing barriers to inclusivity within their organizations (Burnes, 2020).
This process involves recognizing and challenging preconceived notions, biases, and systemic
structures that hinder inclusivity. During the unfreezing stage, the leaders and organization must
assess and identify what needs to change (Burnes, 2020; Lewin, 1947). By bringing intention to
11
the element of change, the leaders have a solid understanding of what needs to change and why.
When leaders understand the necessity for change, they can better communicate the change
process with their teams, increasing the likelihood of transformational success (Lewin, 1947).
Once the platform for change gets implemented, the team initiates the change process
(Lewin, 1947). The leader plays a critical role during the unfreezing stage, serving as an agent of
change who guides the employees and encourages a mindset shift (Burnes, 2020). However,
employee empowerment remains important during the change process, as they may experience a
range of emotions but feel a sense of control through autonomy (Burnes, 2020; Lewin, 1947).
During the change stage, the leader’s importance lies in role-modeling behavior and maintaining
consistency (Lewin, 1947).
In the final stage, refreezing focuses on reinforcing and embedding the newly established
practices into the team and organizational culture (Burnes, 2020; Lewin, 1947). Leaders must
recognize that the process necessitates continuous commitment and remains ongoing to solidify
the change, ensuring its transformation. To maintain momentum in the change process, leaders
should find ways to recognize individuals who demonstrate the positive qualities of the change
process (Burnes, 2020). However, leaders must also coach and support employees who struggle
with the transformation (Lewin, 1947).
Lewin’s theory of change provided a valuable framework for understanding how leaders
can effect positive change to create a more inclusive workplace. By understanding employees’
lived experiences, this study contributed to the literature on workplace inclusion by identifying
practical ways leaders can influence the change process using CliftonStrengths® as a dimension
of deep-level diversity.
12
Understanding Diversity Management
The topics of workplace diversity and inclusion continue to evolve as prominent subjects
within the field of human resources. Due to an increase in globalization (Farh et al., 2020; Jansen
& Searle, 2021; Rahman et al., 2020; Randel et al., 2018) and the potential for unjust treatment
of individuals in the workplace (Chen & Tang, 2018; Hajro et al., 2017; Randel et al., 2018),
diversity and inclusion remain top of mind for many global business leaders and organizations.
More specifically, contemporary researchers show interest in workplace inclusion (Brimhall &
Mor Barak, 2018; Chen & Tang, 2018; Farh et al., 2020) as “the terms diversity and inclusion
have been used interchangeably in the past” (Brimhall et al., 2017, p. 222), creating a singular
void in the extant research on workplace inclusion. This challenge complicates identifying
specific research on how leaders can facilitate inclusive workplace environments. Further,
Brimhall et al. (2017) argued in favor of future research investigating “what leaders can do to
increase workplace inclusion, particularly in diverse organizational contexts” (p. 223).
Investigating the problem of how organizations can build more inclusive workplaces through
diversity management benefits organizational culture, creating positive affect for individuals in
the context of a global workforce.
The contemporary term diversity management encompasses how leaders and
organizations administer diversity, equity, inclusion, and belongingness initiatives and programs
(Rabl et al., 2020; Randel et al., 2018). In contrast, Brimhall and Mor Barak (2018) argued that
diversity management singularly focuses on the “recruitment strategies, training, and mentoring
programs” of organizations. Moreover, Brimhall and Mor Barak (2018) contended that inclusion
management encompasses an organization’s “policies and practices that not only recognize
employees’ individual talents but also encourage the full participation of each employee in the
13
formal and informal activities of the organization” (p. 475). Within a global workforce, diversity
management plays a pivotal role in the success of MNCs, enabling leaders to enhance team and
role performance, drive innovation, encourage organizational citizenship behaviors, and nurture
perceived inclusion (Bengtsson et al., 2020; Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Brimhall et al., 2017;
Chen & Tang, 2018; Farh et al., 2020; Jansen & Searle, 2021; Rabl et al., 2020; Rahman et al.,
2020; Randel et al., 2018).
Workplace Diversity
Diversity plays a critical role under the umbrella term diversity management, creating the
foundation for the differences represented within a global workforce. Nweiser and Dajnoki
(2022) cited that the literature is remiss in articulating why organizations should focus on
workplace diversity to achieve success. While some studies offer insight into how organizations
benefit from diversity, the research does not match the pace of rapid changes in globalization,
which create more diverse organizations (Nweiser & Danjnoki, 2022). In their literature review,
Nweiser and Dajnoki (2022) identified the positive outcomes organizations can experience when
utilizing diversity through six essential functions of human resource management: “recruitment
and selection, performance assessment, development of human resources, penalties and rewards,
perception of employees, and well-being of employees” (Nweiser & Dajnoki, 2022, p. 19).
According to Nweiser and Dajnoki (2022), organizations that integrate diversity into their human
resource functions are more likely to experience the positive outcomes of enhanced employee
engagement, performance, and well-being. As globalization evolves rapidly, it is incumbent
upon organizations to react quickly to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce.
Merely identifying as a diverse organization does not ensure that employees experience
the essence of workplace diversity (Rahman et al., 2020; van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2022).
14
When diversity works in organizations, employee engagement heightens, knowledge-sharing
increases, employees feel included, and innovation flourishes (Guillaume et al., 2017; Mor
Barak, 2017; Rahman et al., 2020). Conversely, lacking organizational diversity can impact
employee morale and performance and generate conflict (Guillaume et al., 2017). Therefore,
because of the diversity inherent to an MNCs workforce, organizations must consider how to
manage diversity to retain top talent along with the benefits associated with diverse employees
(Jansen & Searle, 2021).
Benefits of Workplace Diversity
In a survey of 1,700 companies conducting business in eight countries, Lorenzo and
Reeves (2018) identified “a statistically significant relationship between diversity and innovation
outcomes,” signaling the financial appeal of diversity within the context of organizational
profitability and revenue generation (p. 3). While financial performance drives businesses,
diversity brings additional value through multicultural awareness, intersectionality, and the
organization’s culture (Hajro et al., 2017; Mor Barak et al., 2022 Roberson, 2019).
Hajro et al. (2017) argued that organizations benefit from team heterogeneity, providing
teams with unique skill sets and knowledge that homogeneous teams cannot offer, due to the lack
of employee diversity. In their grounded theory study, Hajro et al. (2017) interviewed 143
employees from 48 teams within 11 MNCs to describe how diversity contributed to knowledge
exchange across organizations. Hajro et al. (2017) contended that when MNCs support
engagement-focused diversity climates, they provide opportunities for increased knowledge
exchange among employees, increasing organizational effectiveness. Further, the researchers
advocate for future research, expanding diversity’s applicability in MNCs (Hajro et al., 2017).
15
By prioritizing diversity, MNCs not only improve their work culture; they also establish
inclusive environments that are welcoming to their diverse customer base. Many organizations
focus on how diversity impacts performance, inclusion, and organizational citizenship behavior,
whereas Khan and Kalra (2022) focused on understanding how diversity influences consumers’
moral and social behavioral reactions. Khan and Kalra (2022) identified organizations that have
experienced social backlash due to poor moral decisions and how diversity played a role in
influencing consumer behavior. The perspective consumers form of an organization stems from
the appearance and actions an organization demonstrates (Khan & Kalra, 2022). Khan and Kalra
(2022) advised that perspective quickly forms due to appearance and behavior, signaling the
potential impact of an organization’s lack of diversity. The extant literature lacks research on the
outcomes of organizational diversity, including surface-level and deep-level diversity (Khan &
Kalra, 2022). Consumers can see the visible attributes of surface-level diversity, thus influencing
a consumer’s reaction based on the homogeneity or heterogeneity observed. This research
demonstrated the importance of MNCs diversity as the consumers’ perspective of the
organization could form positively or negatively depending on the observed diversity level. If the
human capital of an MNC skews towards homogeneity, the importance of enhancing workforce
diversity becomes essential.
Terminology for Multinational Corporations
In a global context, MNCs face challenges when administering diversity programs and
initiatives because diversity does not resonate the same in Asia-Pacific (APAC) and Europe,
Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) as it does within the United States (Jansen & Searle, 2021).
The term “was once used primarily in reference to marginalized groups protected by legislation”
predominately in the United States (Jansen & Searle, 2021, p. 1839). Thus, modern researchers
16
commonly use the terms surface-level diversity and deep-level diversity to differentiate
observable and less observable attributes, creating a more inclusive framework for MNCs
(Bengtsson et al., 2020; Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Hajro et al., 2017; Jansen & Searle, 2021).
Viewing diversity through the dimensions of surface- and deep-level diversity, MNCs can
critically reflect on improving the organization’s diversity climate to support the workforce’s
needs.
Surface-Level Diversity
The term surface-level diversity refers to the heterogeneity of organizational
demographics. Research indicates that these demographics are often observable and include an
individual’s age, gender, ethnicity or race, and physical features (Bengtsson et al., 2020; Hajro et
al., 2017; Jansen & Searle, 2021; Rahman et al., 2020). While surface-level diversity increases
representation, bringing awareness physically, Bengtsson et al. (2020) indicated that conflicts
could arise when individual deviant behaviors go unmanaged. The potential conflicts include
generating stereotypes and creating “insider vs. outsider” feelings (Bengtsson et al., 2020, p. 2).
When Bengtsson et al. (2020) investigated 315 Swedish firms’ ability to foster
coopetition, combining cooperation and competition, they found that surface-level attributes of
age and nationality negatively impacted the organizations’ success. Using the variables of age
and nationality, Bengtsson et al. (2020) identified that both dimensions of surface-level diversity
created barriers among employees, generating conflict and stifling team cohesion. The leader’s
role in facilitating inclusion based on surface-level diversity represents an unknown variable in
this study.
Within the context of a global workplace, surface-level diversity poses potential
challenges for MNCs, given that they do not customarily collect demographic data or make it
17
accessible to human resource practitioners. However, in the United States, the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 requires this information for reporting purposes (Jansen & Searle, 2021). Thus, MNCs
focusing on the dimensions of deep-level diversity demographics can be successful in their
efforts to increase levels of workplace inclusion (Chen & Tang, 2018).
Deep-Level Diversity
Deep-level diversity represents the unseen or less-observable attributes of an individual,
encompassing personality and psychological aspects (Jansen & Searle, 2021; Rahman et al.,
2020), values (Jansen & Searle, 2021), thinking styles and cognition (Bengtsson et al., 2020;
Jansen & Searle, 2021), and education (Jansen & Searle, 2021). Jansen and Searle (2021) noted
the scarcity of comprehensive deep-level diversity research on the classification of gender
identity, sexual orientation, religion, and tenure. Despite the limitations, Bengtsson et al. (2020)
identified that deep-level diversity attributes of individuals “tend to increase a team’s total talent
pool of expertise and knowledge,” which enhances inclusionary efforts in overcoming workplace
challenges (p. 2).
A successful leader possesses the ability to manage both surface- and deep-level diversity
effectively. For example, Jansen and Searle (2021) observed that leaders who assemble more
effective teams for specific challenges and activities could better support organizational success
when they know and understand their employees’ unique deep-level diversity attributes. Van
Knippenberg and van Ginkel (2022) posited that when leaders use a diversity mindset with their
teams, they bring intention to their teams’ understanding of the existing diversity and how to
leverage it for positivity. The three elements essential for leaders to exhibit a diversity mindset
include advocacy, stimulation, and reflexivity (van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2022). Through
advocacy, the leader reinforces the inclusion of deep-level diversity attributes, assisting team
18
members in understanding and cultivating awareness of their colleagues’ unique attributes (van
Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2022). Leaders can stimulate their teams by encouraging diverse
perspectives and then debriefing on the team experiences when employees share diverse
perspectives (van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2022). The reflexivity process enables teams to
preserve the knowledge of diverse perspectives, ensuring they can draw on the information in
future circumstances (van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2022).
Diversity represents a crucial component of diversity management and holds centrality in
a leader’s organizational functions when leading multinational teams. Gaining perspective on the
leader’s pivotal role within the diversity literature reinforces the need to understand how leaders
can enrich the employee experience through deep-level diversity. When leaders bring
mindfulness and intention to an individual’s deep-level diversity, perceived inclusion may
increase, strengthening their psychological commitment to the team and organization (Bengtsson
et al., 2020; Jansen & Searle, 2021; Randel et al., 2018).
Workplace Inclusion
The concept of inclusion holds significant importance within the framework of diversity
management. Nonetheless, existing studies on inclusion frequently combine the ideas of
diversity and inclusion and occasionally use the terms interchangeably, despite their distinct
meanings and values (Brimhall et al., 2017). While diversity refers to the differences of
individuals, inclusion indicates how individuals feel valued for their uniqueness and
correspondingly have a sense of belonging within the organization (Bengtsson et al., 2020;
Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Brimhall et al., 2017; Chen & Tang, 2018; Jansen & Searle, 2021;
Rabl et al., 2020). Rahman et al. (2020) argued that “diversity without inclusion is a story of
missed opportunity” (p. 3). The missed opportunity Rahman et al. (2020) alluded to suggests that
19
even though an organization may have diversity, it does not necessarily mean they embrace both
surface- and deep-level diversity within their workforce, thus failing to capitalize on the valuable
advantages of inherent diversity. Therefore, organizations willing to encourage and embrace
diversity and inclusion within their workforce are poised to “capture new markets in the global
business environment” (Rahman et al., 2020, p. 3).
Organizational Culture
The culture of an organization is one of its most defining characteristics. Positive
organizational cultures increase workplace engagement (Goffee & Jones, 2013; Schein &
Schein, 2017; Seppala & Cameron, 2015), heighten productivity (Cameron, 2015; Seppala &
Cameron, 2015), and foster inclusivity (Rahman et al., 2020; Shore et al., 2018; Sinicropi &
Cortese, 2020), allowing employees and organizations to flourish while providing sustainable
health and well-being (Clifton & Harter, 2012; Schein & Schein, 2017; Pfeffer, 2018; Yohn,
2015). On the contrary, organizations not focused on creating a positive and inclusive culture
breed instability, lack concern for unhealthy physical and social environments, manifest
exclusion, and do not excel to their potential (Pfeffer, 2018; Schein & Schein, 2017; Shore et al.,
2018). Similar to diversity, Cameron (2013) and Schein and Schein (2017) asserted that
organizational culture is not limited to the observable explicit traits and behaviors within an
organization but includes the unobservable implicit assumptions that occur throughout the
organization.
Groysberg et al. (2018) contended that organizations fall between two dimensions based
on how they interact with people and respond to change. This continuum categorizes
organizations into eight cultural styles: caring, purpose, learning, enjoyment, results, authority,
safety, and order (Groysberg et al., 2018). Through these styles, leaders can better understand
20
how to sustain or evolve their culture for greater efficiency. When leaders become cognizant of
their current culture, they can take steps to reinforce, sustain, or change their culture.
Nevertheless, leaders can bring the potential for meaning and belongingness into the workplace
by fostering cultures that enable employees to thrive using their strengths and embracing their
authentic selves (Clifton & Harter, 2021; Seppala & Cameron, 2015; Schein & Schein, 2017).
Belongingness and Uniqueness
For an employee to develop a strong sense of workplace inclusion, they must experience
the dimensions of belongingness and uniqueness. To experience belongingness, an employee
should feel their significance within the team or organization, while their colleagues’
appreciation and value of their unique attributes lead to the experience of uniqueness (Shore et
al., 2011). When employees experience the simultaneous combination of belongingness and
uniqueness, “work outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and retention
improve” (Brimhall et al., 2017, p. 223).
As belongingness and uniqueness work together, an employee’s perceived inclusion
increases (Shore et al., 2011). Employees who experience low levels of belongingness and
uniqueness may feel excluded, whereas high levels of belongingness and uniqueness lead to a
sense of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011). However, in situations where belongingness is low, and
uniqueness is high, employees may experience differentiation. Therefore, they might not feel like
insiders but do feel valued for their unique attributes. On the contrary, when belongingness is
high, and uniqueness is low, employees may experience assimilation, feeling like insiders within
the team or organization, but their unique attributes are not valued (Shore et al., 2011). By
emphasizing and valuing belongingness and uniqueness, leaders and organizations increase the
likelihood of employees experiencing workplace inclusion.
21
Well-Being
A positive employee experience relies on the critical aspect of employee well-being.
When employees feel a sense of belonging and receive recognition for their uniqueness, their
well-being is enhanced (Adams et al., 2020; Miminoshvili & Černe, 2021; Shore & Chung,
2023; Shore et al., 2018). Adams et al. (2020) identified that burnout can lead to diminished
well-being when employees feel discriminated against or experience ostracization in the
workplace. In their study of 1,926 employees across five countries, Adams et al. (2020)
emphasized the leader’s crucial role in moderating a culture of inclusion, minimizing
ostracization within the team, and actively addressing discrimination. Addressing these common
workplace issues resulted in the employees in the study experiencing greater well-being,
improved performance, successful goal attainment, and increased commitment to the
organization (Adams et al., 2020). Similarly, Shore et al. (2018) posited that overt or subtle
discrimination, which results in perceived employee exclusion, significantly impacts an
employee’s psychological and mental health. Hence, leaders must know how employees perceive
their sense of belonging and uniqueness within a team or organization while creating a
workplace and climate of inclusion free of discrimination and ostracization.
The onboarding process of a new employee lays the foundation for creating workplace
inclusion for the individual. As new hires come on board, they experience many emotions while
navigating the culture of the organization and colleagues, inclusion being one. Knowledge
sharing is vital to a successful onboarding experience for a new hire or when an employee joins a
new team, as it involves the transfer of a myriad of information (Miminoshvili & Černe, 2021).
During this assimilation period, if an employee perceives a lack of inclusion, it may result in a
reduced level of knowledge sharing, which, in turn, can hinder the employee from reaching their
22
full potential and success. Continuing with this experience perpetuates an environment that could
adversely affect the employees’ physical and emotional well-being (Miminoshvili & Černe,
2021; Shore et al., 2023).
Deep-Level Diversity and Inclusion
Chen and Tang (2018) discussed that previous research has investigated perceived
inclusion through the lens of surface-level diversity rather than a deep-level methodology that
incorporates interpersonal and cognitive attributes. Therefore, a more holistic approach to
diversity management focuses on attributes of deep-level diversity that contribute to an
individual’s ability to bring their whole self to work, increasing their perceived sense of
inclusion. However, the level at which an individual feels included depends on the psychological
safety and trust leaders manifest within their teams (Brimhall et al., 2017; Farh et al., 2020).
Leadership and Inclusion
Creating inclusive workplaces relies heavily on leaders, making their interactions and
relationships with those they lead fundamental. Clifton and Harter (2019) cited that a leader
accounts for 70% of an employee's engagement. Given the high percentage, leaders cannot be
passive in fostering an inclusive workplace; they must actively use their influence to promote
inclusivity.
In the study conducted by Brimhall et al. (2017), leaders who “dedicate time and
resources to developing high-quality interactions will benefit by increasing employee perceptions
of inclusion 6 and 12 months later” (p. 234). By nurturing workplace inclusion, leaders can work
to reduce attrition, thus alleviating the constant need to focus on talent attraction (Brimhall et al.,
2017; Farh et al., 2020; Rahman et al., 2020). As leaders and MNCs continue to seek ways to
solve the problem of creating more inclusive teams, investigating the role of CliftonStrengths® as
23
a dimension of deep-level diversity may offer valuable insights (Bengtsson et al., 2020; Brimhall
& Mor Barak, 2018; Jansen & Searle, 2021; Rahman et al., 2020).
Ethical leadership maintains that leaders adhere to a moral code and uphold the policies
and procedures of their organization. Rabl et al. (2020) explored the role of ethics and how
leaders may impact employee behavior when administering learning interventions related to
diversity management. In their quasi-experimental research, Rabl et al. (2020) claimed that the
organizational integration and learning approach to fostering workplace inclusion impacts the
perceived organizational citizenship behaviors and deviant workplace behaviors of employees,
becoming a catalyst for perceived ethics. Conducted in two parts, the study first occurred in the
United States using a panel representative of the country’s diversity, with the second study
occurring later in Germany, a primarily homogeneous country.
This investigation indicated that using the organizational integration and learning
approach to diversity management fostered inclusion across the organization, positively
impacting the employee experience (Rabl et al., 2020). The research further suggested that
reciprocity exists between organizational perceptions of inclusion and ethics. From this research,
Rabl et al. (2020) contended that for an organization to be inclusive, it must also be ethical.
These findings have important implications for the broader domain of perceived inclusion in
multinational organizations.
For an organization to increase perceived workplace inclusion and improve the employee
experience, it should advocate for change through action (Brimhall et al., 2017; Brimhall & Mor
Barak, 2018; Farh et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019; Rabl et al., 2020). Whether it is focusing on
elevating a current climate of inclusion or developing leadership styles conducive to perceived
24
inclusion, the organization has to encourage the transformation as it may not occur organically
(Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Li et al., 2019).
CliftonStrengths®
In recent years, the study of strengths has gained traction as a research topic in positive
psychology (Biswas-Diener et al., 2017; Dolev-Amit et al., 2021; Miglianico et al., 2020;
Petrone et al., 2023). Dolev-Amit et al. (2021) attributed this rise to a “shift in research from
exploring deficit, damage, and how suffering can be prevented and diminished, to exploring how
quality of life, happiness, growth, and meaning can be built and achieved” (p. 645). At its
foundation, the 177-question CliftonStrengths® assessment by Gallup® assists users in
identifying their natural talents and building strengths by investing in them (Rath & Conchie,
2008). The practical application of strengths in daily life provides development opportunities
within organizations, academia, and private coaching practices, with over 30 million people
using the assessment (Dolev-Amit et al., 2021; Gallup, 2023a; Miglianico et al., 2020; Petrone et
al., 2023; Ryan & Mosher, 2021).
Positive Psychology
The field of positive psychology has experienced tremendous growth in the last 20 years,
encompassing a diverse range of interventions and processes aimed at fostering the growth and
development of individuals, teams, and organizations (Ciarrochi et al., 2022). Positive
psychology involves understanding ways to enhance individuals’ lives through happiness,
strengths, fulfillment, productivity, or perseverance, shifting the focus away from pathology or
mental illness (Seligman, 2002; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). While positive psychology
centers on the positive aspects of human experiences, critics such as Guignin (2002) argued that
it is nearly impossible to disentangle the positive from the negative human experiences entirely.
25
To counter the misconception, Magyar-Moe et al. (2015) contended that “positive psychologists
are as concerned with building strengths and the best things life has to offer as they are with
managing weaknesses and repairing the worst things in life” (p. 510).
Peter Seligman remains widely regarded as the pioneer of the positive psychology
movement; however, McKay and Greengrass (2003) called Don O. Clifton the grandfather of
positive psychology. Clifton initiated the investigation in the 1950s, focusing on understanding
what is right with people rather than what is wrong with them (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001).
From this initial investigation, Clifton pioneered the strengths-based approach to positive
psychology, creating the modern-day CliftonStrengths® assessment, earning him the title of the
father of strengths-based psychology (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Castiello D’Antonio, 2018;
Ciarrochi et al., 2022).
Background
The CliftonStrengths® assessment is one of many strengths-based development self-
assessments popular within positive psychology (Rath & Conchie, 2008; Watkins et al., 2022).
Over the past 30 years, it has garnered recognition under various names, including
StrengthsQuest®, Strengths Finder®, Clifton StrengthsFinder®, and most notably,
CliftonStrengths® (Clifton & Harter, 2019; Rath & Conchie, 2008; Ryan & Mosher, 2021;
Watkins et al., 2022). The CliftonStrengths® assessment, created by Clifton, has served more
than 30 million users, enabling individuals to identify their natural talents and invest in
developing their top themes to create strengths for positive use in work, education, and
personally (Asplund et al., 2014; Clifton & Harter, 2023; Gallup, 2023a).
Clifton co-created the Nebraska Human Resources Research Foundation at the University
of Nebraska, allowing students and research faculty to study strengths-based psychology
26
(Gallup, 2023a; Rath & Conchie, 2008). During this research, Clifton experienced a moment of
enlightenment as he discovered that graduating students possessed character traits unlike their
less successful classmates, which would lead him to study and create one of the first strengths-
based assessments (Gallup, 2023a; Rath & Conchie, 2008). Using a qualitative approach for their
research, Clifton and his research team conducted over two million interviews to comprehend
how individuals capitalize on their talents and use talent and intelligence to achieve success,
which resulted in an objective measurement of the most frequent talent themes individuals
possess (Asplund et al., 2014; Clifton & Anderson, 2001; Rath & Conchie, 2008).
The assessment, first administered in 1999, underwent revisions, most notably in 2006
(Asplund et al., 2014; Gallup, 2023a; Rath & Conchie, 2008). This revision transformed the
assessment into a set of forced choice pairings derived from 177 questions aligned to 34 themes
(Asplund et al., 2014; Rath & Conchie, 2008). While the assessment focuses solely on
identifying an individual’s talents using the strengths theory, it does not overlook weaknesses
(Clifton & Nelson, 1992; Rath & Conchie, 2008). Clifton and Nelson (1992) advised that “the
Strengths’ Theory stresses that focus must be on strengths while weaknesses are to be managed,
not ignored” (p. 27). The ultimate purpose of the strengths-based philosophy is to develop unique
talents and strengths to achieve success (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Clifton & Harter, 2019;
Rath & Conchie, 2008).
The CliftonStrengths® assessment has two output options depending on the version
purchased. While every assessment contains 177 questions, the Top 5 version solely focuses on
the top five themes from the possible 34, whereas the full 34 report identifies all themes from
highest to lowest (Gallup, 2023a). Regardless of the version, individuals complete the
assessment online, providing immediate results. Many organizations and universities use the Top
27
5 themes as a foundation, depending upon the application and overall goal of the intervention
(Ryan & Mosher, 2021; Watkins et al., 2022).
Once the individual has their results, applying the top themes begins and can take various
forms. When used in academics, the goal is often to provide students with a way to leverage their
strengths for academic and leadership success (Allan et al., 2019). Rath and Conchie (2008)
suggested that the most prolific application is to use the Gallup® methodology of name it, claim
it, and aim it. The name it phase includes completing the assessment and reading the strengths
profile to understand each theme’s meaning, whereas the claim it phase encourages the
individual to think about how a particular theme shows up in their life, school, or work and
connecting past experiences and talent to the theme (Rath & Conchie, 2008). This process holds
immense value in understanding themes as it firmly grounds the theme within the individual,
helping them establish a personal connection with their inherent talents. Finally, in the aim it
phase, the individual considers their newfound knowledge to set goals and invest in developing
this talent to become a strength (Rath & Conchie, 2008).
34 Themes
The 34 themes of the CliftonStrengths® assessment represent the patterns most prevalent
in human talent (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). The signature theme report identifies the Top 5
themes indicating the most prevalent natural talent an individual possesses (Buckingham &
Clifton, 2001; Rath & Conchie, 2008). Buckingham and Clifton (2001) declared that “the real
tragedy of life is not that each of us doesn’t have enough strengths, it’s that we fail to use the
ones we have” (p. 12). This sentiment fuels the application of the 34 themes connecting positive
psychology to individual development. Figure 1 outlines each of the 34 themes and their
meaning.
28
Table 1
CliftonStrengths® 34 Themes and Definitions
Theme
Definition
Achiever®
People exceptionally talented in the Achiever theme work hard and possess
a great deal of stamina. They take immense satisfaction in being busy and
productive.
Activator®
People exceptionally talented in the Activator theme can make things
happen by turning thoughts into action. They want to do things now rather
than simply talk about them.
Adaptability®
People exceptionally talented in the Adaptability theme prefer to go with the
flow. They tend to be “now” people who take things as they come and
discover the future one day at a time.
Analytical®
People exceptionally talented in the Analytical theme search for reasons and
causes. They have the ability to think about all of the factors that might
affect a situation.
Arranger®
People exceptionally talented in the Arranger theme can organize, but they
also have a flexibility that complements this ability. They like to determine
how all of the pieces and resources can be arranged for maximum
productivity.
Belief®
People exceptionally talented in the Belief theme have certain core values
that are unchanging. Out of these values emerges a defined purpose for their
lives.
Command®
People exceptionally talented in the Command theme have presence. They
can take control of a situation and make decisions.
Communication®
People exceptionally talented in the Communication theme generally find it
easy to put their thoughts into words. They are good conversationalists and
presenters.
Competition®
People exceptionally talented in the Competition theme measure their
progress against the performance of others. They strive to win first place and
revel in contests.
Connectedness®
People exceptionally talented in the Connectedness theme have faith in the
links among all things. They believe there are few coincidences and that
almost every event has meaning.
Consistency®
People exceptionally talented in the Consistency theme are keenly aware of
the need to treat people the same. They crave stable routines and clear rules
and procedures that everyone can follow.
Context®
People exceptionally talented in the Context theme enjoy thinking about the
past. They understand the present by researching its history.
29
Theme
Definition
Deliberative®
People exceptionally talented in the Deliberative theme are best described
by the serious care they take in making decisions or choices. They anticipate
obstacles.
Developer®
People exceptionally talented in the Developer theme recognize and
cultivate the potential in others. They spot the signs of each small
improvement and derive satisfaction from evidence of progress.
Discipline®
People exceptionally talented in the Discipline theme enjoy routine and
structure. Their world is best described by the order they create.
Empathy®
People exceptionally talented in the Empathy theme can sense other people's
feelings by imagining themselves in others' lives or situations.
Focus®
People exceptionally talented in the Focus theme can take a direction, follow
through and make the corrections necessary to stay on track. They prioritize,
then act.
Futuristic®
People exceptionally talented in the Futuristic theme are inspired by the
future and what could be. They energize others with their visions of the
future.
Harmony®
People exceptionally talented in the Harmony theme look for consensus.
They don't enjoy conflict; rather, they seek areas of agreement.
Ideation®
People exceptionally talented in the Ideation theme are fascinated by ideas.
They are able to find connections between seemingly disparate phenomena.
Includer®
People exceptionally talented in the Includer theme accept others. They
show awareness of those who feel left out and make an effort to include
them.
Individualization®
People exceptionally talented in the Individualization theme are intrigued
with the unique qualities of each person. They have a gift for figuring out
how different people can work together productively.
Input®
People exceptionally talented in the Input theme have a need to collect and
archive. They may accumulate information, ideas, artifacts or even
relationships.
Intellection®
People exceptionally talented in the Intellection theme are characterized by
their intellectual activity. They are introspective and appreciate intellectual
discussions.
Learner®
People exceptionally talented in the Learner theme have a great desire to
learn and want to continuously improve. The process of learning, rather than
the outcome, excites them.
Maximizer®
People exceptionally talented in the Maximizer theme focus on strengths as
a way to stimulate personal and group excellence. They seek to transform
something strong into something superb.
30
Theme
Definition
Positivity®
People exceptionally talented in the Positivity theme have contagious
enthusiasm. They are upbeat and can get others excited about what they are
going to do.
Relator®
People exceptionally talented in the Relator theme enjoy close relationships
with others. They find deep satisfaction in working hard with friends to
achieve a goal.
Responsibility®
People exceptionally talented in the Responsibility theme take psychological
ownership of what they say they will do. They are committed to stable
values such as honesty and loyalty.
Restorative™
People exceptionally talented in the Restorative theme are adept at dealing
with problems. They are good at figuring out what is wrong and resolving it.
Self-Assurance®
People exceptionally talented in the Self-Assurance theme feel confident in
their ability to take risks and manage their own lives. They have an inner
compass that gives them certainty in their decisions.
Significance®
People exceptionally talented in the Significance theme want to make a big
impact. They are independent and prioritize projects based on how much
influence they will have on their organization or people around them.
Strategic®
People exceptionally talented in the Strategic theme create alternative ways
to proceed. Faced with any given scenario, they can quickly spot the
relevant patterns and issues.
Woo®
People exceptionally talented in the Woo theme love the challenge of
meeting new people and winning them over. They derive satisfaction from
breaking the ice and making a connection with someone.
Note. Adapted from “The 34 CliftonStrengths Themes Explain Your Talent DNA” by Gallup, 2023b
(https://www.gallup.com/cliftonstrengths/en/253715/34-cliftonstrengths-themes.aspx). Gallup®,
CliftonStrengths®, and the 34 CliftonStrengths® Theme Names are trademarks of Gallup, Inc.
Gallup Theme Descriptions, Copyright © 2000, Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.
31
Four Domains
The CliftonStrengths® assessment classifies the 34 themes into four domains: executing,
influencing, relationship building, and strategic thinking (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Rath &
Conchie, 2008; Clifton & Harter, 2019). Rath and Conchie (2008) depicted the 34 themes
correlating to each domain as outlined in Table 2. A specific color represents each domain,
updated in 2019 so that individuals with color blindness could see each domain. The value of the
domains assists individuals in understanding the commonalities that the themes contain and
where themes might have concentration among the four domains (Nelson, 2022).
Table 2
CliftonStrengths® Domains
Executing
Influencing
Relationship Building
Strategic Thinking
Achiever®
Arranger®
Belief®
Consistency®
Deliberative®
Discipline®
Focus®
Responsibility®
Restorative™
Activator®
Command®
Communication®
Competition®
Maximizer®
Self-Assurance®
Significance®
Woo®
Adaptability®
Developer®
Connectedness®
Empathy®
Harmony®
Includer®
Individualization®
Positivity®
Relator®
Analytical®
Context®
Futuristic®
Ideation®
Input®
Intellection®
Learner®
Strategic®
Note. Adapted from “What Are the Four Domains of CliftonStrengths” by Gallup, 2023c.
(https://www.gallup.com/cliftonstrengths/en/253736/cliftonstrengths-domains.aspx). Gallup®,
CliftonStrengths®, and the 34 CliftonStrengths® Theme Names are trademarks of Gallup, Inc.
Gallup Theme Descriptions, Copyright © 2000, Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.
CliftonStrengths® in Higher Education
The nascent research on CliftonStrengths® as an instrument in positive psychology
primarily focuses on how institutions of higher education and organizations use it as an
intervention for self-development and a tool to achieve personal success (Allan et al., 2021;
32
Miglianico et al., 2020; Rath & Conchie, 2008; Welch et al., 2014). The application of
CliftonStrengths® in academia includes using it to assist students to succeed academically (Allan
et al., 2021; Ryan & Mosher, 2021), build relationships in study abroad programs (Dresen et al.,
2019; Moldenhauer et al., 2021), and to bolster leadership skills among student leaders (Maia,
2021; Moldenhauer et al., 2021; Satterwhite, 2021).
CliftonStrengths® in the Workplace
Organizations have found CliftonStrengths® beneficial for employees in creating self-
awareness (Dolev-Amit et al., 2021; Watkins et al., 2022; Welch et al., 2014), nurturing
employee engagement (Ding & Yu, 2022; Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2017; Rath & Conchie,
2008), motivating in-role job performance (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018; Ding & Liu, 2023;
van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015), building leadership skills (Petrone et al., 2023; Rath & Conchie,
2008) and encouraging well-being (Clifton & Harter, 2021; Dolev-Amit et al., 2021; Forest et
al., 2012; Meyers & van Woerkom, 2017). In summary, the research indicates that using
CliftonStrengths® has many positive outcomes.
Job Performance
The basis of the CliftonStrengths® assessment is to identify and act upon an individual’s
natural talent and skill (Biswas-Diener et al., 2017; Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). Depending on
how they deploy the intervention, organizations that support using the CliftonStrengths®
assessment within their workforce may experience an increase in employee engagement that, in
turn, can positively affect job performance (Hodges & Clifton, 2004).
Hodges and Clifton (2004) reported that one organization witnessed a 6% increase in
warehouse productivity after implementing the CliftonStrengths® intervention, whereas in the 3
years before the intervention, the percentage varied positively and negatively by 1%. This
33
particular team under study completed the assessment, attended lunch-and-learns, and
participated in a half-day group session to further hone their knowledge of their strengths and
learn their colleagues’ strengths. This team’s managers participated in a 4-day course to become
strengths champions and support using strengths within their teams. In contrast, two other teams
at this organization participated in a more intense intervention curriculum and within 6 months
experienced a 9% increase in employee productivity (Hodges & Clifton, 2004). Regardless of the
time spent on the initial intervention, CliftonStrengths® positively impacts those participating in
the assessment. Organizations must make decisions about the impact they aim to achieve in
supporting their employee’s engagement and future job performance, along with the financial
and time investment of training their leaders to support the strength-based philosophy (Hodges &
Clifton, 2004; Watkins et al., 2022).
Leadership
Gaining comprehension of the CliftonStrengths® assessment and applying it to leadership
facilitates mindfulness and awareness of leaders’ inherent talents. By dedicating time and
attention, what Rath and Conchie (2008) called investment, to understanding their own
CliftonStrengths® themes and the value they provide, leaders can effectively employ those
themes in a collaborative approach when interacting with others, thereby increasing their chances
of achieving success (Henck & Hulme, 2008; Welch et al., 2014). This investment in strengths
holds significance because developing awareness of CliftonStrengths® themes at an individual
level establishes a basis for applying strengths within the scope of leadership (Welch et al.,
2014). Appropriately applying CliftonStrengths® themes fosters a strengths-based culture,
thereby cultivating a healthier work environment that promotes mindfulness regarding strengths
and their manifestations in interpersonal communication, work styles, and individual and team
34
performance (Welch et al., 2014). Without discernment, the misuse of talents can detract from
their inherent value in strengths-based leadership.
When mindfully using CliftonStrengths® themes, leaders should expect positive results in
their behavior and with those around them. Rath (2007) argued that when individuals utilize their
top five themes in daily tasks and activities, they experience fulfillment, likely driven by intrinsic
motivation (Welch et al., 2014). Harnessing themes by applying knowledge and skill to one’s
capabilities gives greater meaning to the work performed while being true to the authentic self
(Rath, 2007). This application suggests that by transitioning God-given themes into strengths,
individuals can gain satisfaction in their ability to expand their vocation.
Conversely, CliftonStrengths® themes can become unintentional barriers to success for
leaders when applied inappropriately. For example, the overutilization or underutilization of a
theme leads to what Kaiser and Overfield (2011) called lopsided leadership. When a leader does
not appropriately modulate a theme, this leads to an imbalanced approach, resulting in less-than-
desirable behavior (Welch et al., 2014). This off-putting behavior then begins to deteriorate
relationships with others, eventually leading to a lack of trust or, even worse, an employee
leaving an organization due to the leader’s lack of self-awareness (Welch et al., 2014). In order
to address negative behavior associated with specific themes, leaders can adopt strategies such as
pausing, reflecting on behavior triggers, and self-assessing the impact their behavior has on
others (Welch et al., 2014). Through consciously adjusting behavior linked to those themes,
leaders can strive for improved outcomes in the future.
Inclusion
While the literature indicates the value of using CliftonStrengths®, it neglects to describe
how leaders and individual contributors in MNCs can use it to increase organizational inclusion
35
through the lens of deep-level diversity. Biswas-Diener et al. (2017) indicated that, to their
knowledge, research does not exist to understand how “participants actually use strengths in a
novel way (as opposed to simply using strengths in everyday life)” (p. 37). Thus, there is a
compelling reason to investigate and describe how using CliftonStrengths® as a dimension of
deep-level diversity could increase perceived inclusion.
Similar to Biswas-Diener et al. (2017), Bakker and van Woerkom (2018) articulated the
importance of future strengths research among groups of diverse individuals as “relatively few
field experiments have been conducted with strengths interventions in an organizational context
that allow for causal explanations and that provide insight into practices that can increase
strengths use” (p. 43). Further, Bakker and van Woerkom (2018) asserted that while research
exists on the organizational use of strengths, it “lags considerably behind in promoting evidence-
based practice” (p. 43). Therefore, using a qualitative grounded theory study to describe
employees’ experiences in an MNC about the phenomenon of inclusion using CliftonStrengths®
provides evidence-based practice answering the call for future research by Bakker and van
Woerkom (2018) and Biswas-Diener et al. (2017).
Summary
The emerging research on workplace inclusion in MNCs and the focus organizations are
placing on diversity management provide hope for employees struggling with feelings of
exclusion and an opportunity for a more positive employee experience (Brimhall & Mor Barak,
2018; Brimhall et al., 2017; Cenkci et al., 2019; Downey et al., 2015; Randel et al., 2018; Shore
et al., 2018). Workplace inclusion is a foundational component of diversity management.
Although workplace inclusion may seem inconsequential, it is crucial in terms of today’s
concern for organizations’ employees, warranting further exploration (Bengtsson et al., 2020;
36
Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018; Jansen & Searle, 2021). Therefore, understanding the critical role
organizations and leaders play in increasing perceived workplace inclusion in MNCs would
enhance the employee experience.
37
Chapter 3: Research Method
The purpose of this study was to describe the way in which leaders of Galaxy
(pseudonym) enhance organizational inclusion using CliftonStrengths® as a construct of deep-
level diversity. Because Galaxy is an organization committed to inclusion and diversity, having
this knowledge would be an asset to its leadership for strategic planning, and is expected to
positively impact the employee experience, creating an environment where employees can
flourish, be their authentic selves, and feel a sense of belonging (Brimhall et al., 2017; Randel et
al., 2018; Shore & Chung, 2023). Creating an inclusive workplace improves employee
engagement (Downey et al., 2015; Goswami & Goswami, 2018; Sinicropi & Cortese, 2021),
increases work performance (Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2017; van Woerkom & Meyers, 2015;
Watkins et al., 2022), and benefits employee well-being (Brimhall et al., 2017; Shore et al.,
2018). Therefore, this qualitative grounded theory study was specifically designed to record and
describe employees’ experiences, identifying the transformations within Galaxy upon
implementing the CliftonStrengths® assessment and the resulting positive effects on workplace
inclusion.
Chapter 3 provides the methodology for acquiring and analyzing the study data. The
chapter begins with an explanation of the selection of a qualitative grounded theory approach,
highlighting its suitability for the particular objectives of this study. Next, the population and
sample details are discussed, along with the materials and instruments I used in the study. Then, I
review the data collection and analysis procedures. The chapter concludes by examining
trustworthiness, assumptions, limitations, and delimitations, outlining the selected strategies to
mitigate potential bias, and closing with a chapter summation.
38
Research Questions
RQ1: How does associating CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity in the workplace
encourage a culture of inclusion in a U.S.-headquartered multinational corporation?
RQ2: How do leaders of multinational corporations influence organizational change to
increase inclusion using CliftonStrengths® in a U.S.-headquartered multinational corporation?
Research Method
In this study I employed a qualitative methodology to describe the experiences of the
employees at Galaxy, further understanding the cycles of organizational change to increase
workplace inclusion using CliftonStrengths®. Human resource practitioners in multinational
corporations and CliftonStrengths® coaches benefit from understanding the process and practices
necessary for employees to experience greater perceived inclusion within the workplace using
deep-level diversity (Jansen & Searle, 2021). When employees experience inclusion through
diversity acknowledgment, the quantitative research shows a boost in performance,
organizational citizenship behaviors, and engagement (Brimhall et al., 2017; Cardon et al., 2023;
Downey et al., 2015; Farh et al., 2020). Using a qualitative approach allowed me to exercise
creativity when exploring phenomena, employing a best-fit approach to address the research
questions effectively (Mills, 2014). Following the principles of qualitative research and
leveraging a grounded theory method, I utilized my natural talent of Ideation®, my fourth
CliftonStrengths® theme, to design an efficient and effective study (Charmaz, 2014; Mills &
Birks, 2017; Rath & Conchie, 2008).
The origins and evolution of qualitative research influenced the selection of the
qualitative approach. The roots of qualitative research trace back to the 15th century with the
emergence of colonialism and the initial ethnographic writing by explorers who documented
39
their travels, describing their experiences and the people they encountered in the New World
(Mills & Birks, 2017). In the 20th century, the transformation of qualitative research gained
influence from social and political unrest worldwide (Mills & Birks, 2017). The most significant
transformation took place in 1968, marked by the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the United
States, the emergence of a revolution against communist rule in France, and the enactment of the
Race Relations Act of 1968 in the United Kingdom (Mills & Birks, 2017). These significant
events, along with numerous others, raised questions among scholars regarding “their role, their
place in the world and the relationship they sustain with participants throughout the research
process, including the presentation of their findings” (Mills & Birks, 2017, p. 7). Therefore, I
selected a qualitative approach that complemented and aligned with investigating how deep-level
diversity influences inclusion.
A qualitative approach was also appropriate because, according to Eriksson and
Kovalainen (2011), a considerable portion of existing scientific and business research relies on
quantitative approaches that fail to offer “a critical and reflexive view about the social world of
business and its core processes” (p. 3). In contrast, qualitative research offers an alternative
approach to understanding subjectivity when conducting business research (Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2011; Mills & Birks, 2017). The qualitative approach’s significance in this study
resided in its ability to elucidate the participants’ perceptions and observations through inductive
inquiry rather than relying solely on objective deductive reasoning typically associated with the
quantitative approach (Mills & Birks, 2017).
Shore and Chung (2023) contended that the existing literature on workplace inclusion,
including the role of leaders, predominately emphasizes the significance of leadership in
establishing inclusive workplace environments rather than delving into the essential processes
40
and experiences employees should undergo to feel genuinely included. The inherent application
of a qualitative approach enabled me to address this limitation, acquire the description of these
processes and experiences, and then analyze the data using the grounded theory method
(Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021; Flick, 2019). Further, Mills and Birks (2014) and
Charmaz (2014) advised that qualitative grounded theory studies assist researchers in exploring
phenomena where current theory does not exist or where research can support the understanding
of an underrepresented phenomenon. Thus, using a grounded theory approach in this study, I
explored and described how leaders’ influence contributes to the change process of using and
integrating CliftonStrengths® to foster workplace inclusion, unraveling the complexities of the
phenomena.
Research Design
Grounded theory methods have experienced a transformation akin to the one observed in
qualitative research. In the late 1960s, Glaser and Strauss (1967) pioneered a systematic
approach to the traditional data analysis methods in qualitative research. The emergence of this
new method sought to ground the study in the lived experiences of the participants, considering
their perspectives and opinions (Charmaz, 2014). The process begins with collecting inductive
data, and through constant comparative analysis, the researcher continuously gathers additional
data and compares it with the previously collected information (Charmaz, 2017). In this iterative
process, the researcher continues to gather and categorize new data, while concepts emerge until
saturation occurs, at which point no new concepts emerge (Charmaz, 2012, 2014). The primary
goal of this systematic method and analysis process concludes with generating a substantive
theory through intimate interaction and constant comparison of the collected data, providing an
41
abstract, conceptual understanding of the phenomenon studied (Charmaz, 2014; Mills & Birks,
2017).
Nevertheless, in the late 1970s, Glaser and Strauss went their separate ways because of
diverse perspectives, with each continuing to evolve the grounded theory methods through
distinct ontological viewpoints (Charmaz, 2014). Developments continued, and in the late 1990s,
Charmaz (2014), along with other scholars, introduced the constructivist movement, turning
away from the classical positivism of Glaser and Strauss (1967). Charmaz (2017) continued to
expand upon the original method by making contemporary revisions focusing on the “researchers
and research participants’ language, meanings, and actions” (p. 299).
The constructivist grounded theory employs much of the original work Glaser and
Strauss (1999) conceptualized, including a systematic method with flexibility. Charmaz (2017)
indicated that the constructivist approach includes using a relativist epistemology,
acknowledging multiple realities, using reflexivity, and being mindful of historical, social, and
situational conditions. Thus, constructivist grounded theory is highly valued by modern
researchers, including those in management research, for the flexibility and creativity it grants to
their work in exploring organizational phenomena (Charmaz, 2014; Charmaz & Thornberg,
2021; Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011; Makri & Neely, 2021; Mills & Birks, 2017).
The quintessential nature of constructivist grounded theory describes participants’ views
concerning a phenomenon to generate a substantive theory (Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz, 2014;
Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021). Thereby, the researcher simultaneously collects data for analysis
and immediately codes the data line-by-line. Charmaz (2014) argued the urgency of coding data
after each interview to ensure that the researcher mitigates potential bias toward the data. Using
line-by-line coding “helps grounded theorists to understand their research participants’
42
experiences and perspectives” while actively engaging the researcher with the data to begin
conceptualizing and formulating processes, actions, and meanings from the data (Charmaz &
Thornberg, 2021, p. 307). Charmaz (2012) described this process as helping “researchers to
define connections between data” (p. 5). As the researcher continuously compares data, memo-
writing should occur to “study the data and codes in new ways” and to “consider, question, and
clarify the data” as it emerges (Charmaz, 2012, p. 9). This process in the constructivist grounded
theory approach differs from other methods in qualitative research by generating categories
through analytical means rather than through typical sorting measures of narrative data
(Charmaz, 2014). As this analytical process of constant comparison continues, the substantive
theory crystalizes (Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021; Tie et al., 2019). Using a
grounded theory methodology for this study provided an appropriate framework to thoroughly
analyze employees’ experiences using CliftonStrengths® to influence perceived organizational
inclusion.
Charmaz and Thornberg (2021) defined grounded theory as creating practical strategies
for researchers to address “implications for professional practice” (p. 306). Given that employees
hold multiple realities and diverse experiences of inclusion, the ontological nature of this study
aligns with constructivist grounded theory methods (Charmaz, 2014). Therefore, grounded
theory was the most appropriate research design for this qualitative study to explicate the
experiences of employees’ application of CliftonStrengths® as a deep-level diversity dimension
to describe what changes transpired in fostering greater inclusion levels (Charmaz, 2012;
Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021).
43
Population
The study population consisted of employees at Galaxy, a U.S.-headquartered MNC in
the mobility industry, with 11 offices spanning the Americas, APAC, and EMEA as the research
site locations. This organization was selected for the study site because, at the time of this study,
I was working for Galaxy, which utilized the Gallup® CliftonStrengths® framework to identify
each individual’s areas of natural talent. At the time of this study, Galaxy administered the
CliftonStrengths® assessment to all employees, with individual contributors gaining access to
their top 5 natural talents and people leaders receiving the full report of all 34 talent themes.
Galaxy’s workforce composition resembled that of other organizations within the
mobility industry, with most of the workforce residing in the U.S. Regarding surface-level
demographics, women constituted 74% of the workforce, while men accounted for the remaining
26%. At the time of this study, the organization only accounted for binary gender identification.
Because of the Global Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), Galaxy did not report on the non-
U.S. employee surface-level demographics to comply with data privacy regulations (Erdos,
2022; Kuner, 2023). When this study was conducted, the reportable demographics for U.S.
employees indicated that the U.S. population of Galaxy showed a relatively homogenous
composition. Therefore, I invited members from the APAC and EMEA regions to participate in
this study to ensure diversity and cultural representation.
Study Sample
The target sample size for this investigation was 12 participants, recruited across
Galaxy’s three regions, in alignment with Morse and Clark’s (2019) recommended guidelines.
Obtaining research approval for an adequate sample size in grounded theory becomes complex,
as it primarily hinges on achieving saturation in the data (Charmaz, 2012, 2104). Creswell et al.
44
(2007) indicated that a sound grounded theory study should include about 20 participants or until
data saturation occurs. On the contrary, Stern (2007) suggested that a sample should represent
the study and conclude once the data reaches saturation. Further, Morse and Clark (2019)
suggested that a minimum of 10 participants suffices as long as enough data are collected to
begin revealing “some regularity or commonalities between the participants’ experiences” (p.
155).
Careful participant selection is critical to the success of compelling interviews using
grounded theory (Morse & Clark, 2019); therefore, in this study, purposeful sampling was
crucial in recruiting and identifying the 12 suitable participants. To obtain a viable sample, I used
the Qualtrics® platform to administer a preliminary qualitative screening assessment made
available to all employees at Galaxy and distributed via communication from Galaxy’s Chief
Executive Officer. Individuals taking part in the qualitative screening questionnaire had the
chance to express their willingness to participate in what Charmaz (2014) called intensive
interviews, a hallmark of constructivist grounded theory. The sample combined individual
contributors and people leaders to gain a comprehensive overview of their experiences with the
inclusion phenomenon, in alignment with Shore and Chung (2023). Recruitment for the final
sample of 12 participants continued until it consisted of at least one individual contributor and
one people leader from the Americas, APAC, and EMEA. This practice was critical because
inclusion was foundational to this investigation and ensured data collection from a diverse
population.
One way to achieve the inclusion of a diverse population is to employ the purposeful
sampling method. Urquhart (2023) suggested using purposeful sampling as a technique when a
study conducted in one organization limits the ability for theoretical sampling “where there is
45
little opportunity for overlapping analysis and data collection” (p. 159). Further, Urquhart (2023)
emphasized that researchers should not be discouraged from conducting grounded theory even if
the study does not offer an opportunity to perform theoretical sampling. By utilizing purposeful
sampling, the sample population aligns with the study’s needs to optimize the interviewing
process and effectively address the research questions (Urquhart, 2023). Employing the
purposeful sampling technique provided an opportunity to capture and describe each
participating employee’s perspective on the region's distinct culture while addressing the study’s
research questions.
Materials and Instruments
This study used three primary materials and instruments: a qualitative open-ended
questionnaire, intensive interviews, and myself as the researcher. When conducting a grounded
theory study, Flick (2019) recommended utilizing multiple data sources to compare and contrast
the data, identifying commonalities and differences. Therefore, the data collection instruments,
formulated based on the theoretical framework and the guidance Charmaz (2014) provided for
constructivist interviewing, consisted of an open-ended questionnaire and intensive interviews.
Qualitative Open-Ended Questionnaire
This study employed a qualitative open-ended questionnaire to gain insight into the
perceptions, experiences, and opinions of employees at Galaxy concerning the implementation
and change management process of using CliftonStrengths®. Charmaz (2017) stated that a
critical component of ground theory research requires “making invisible processes transparent”
so that the researcher can begin linking “the specific and the general and the individual and the
social context” (p. 299). This accumulation of data created a baseline narrative, informing me of
the change processes individual contributors and people leaders experienced during the
46
implementation and transformation of using CliftonStrengths®. I created, distributed, and
analyzed this questionnaire using the Qualtrics® platform. Qualtrics®, at the time of this study,
was ISO 27001 certified, the global standard for data security, providing confidence in protecting
participants’ data (Erdos, 2022; Qualtrics, n.d.).
Intensive Interviews
This study utilized intensive interviews as a tool for data collection; Charmaz (2014)
suggested that these provide the best results when a researcher uses the constructivist grounded
theory. In the intensive interviews, I gently guided the participant in a conversation, allowing the
participant to speak freely while I attentively listened to their responses (Charmaz, 2014). This
method’s objective involved understanding the participants’ perspectives, elucidating their
experiences, and documenting how the process impacted them (Charmaz, 2014). By employing
this method specific to constructivist grounded theory, I maintained flexibility and control, all
the while retaining the ability to use the traditional grounded theory technique of probing to
acquire in-depth data (Charmaz, 2014; Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011; Flick, 2019). In adherence
to the outlined methodology, I arranged and conducted interviews utilizing the Microsoft Teams
application. Subsequently, I employed the qualitative software NVivo14 for transcription and
data analysis. When conducting the interviews, I was situated in a private room and wore
headphones for audio to maintain the confidentiality of the participants and their data. The data
was kept in a password-protected file on my laptop explicitly used for school, which used
biometrics for access. The Microsoft suite of products also complied with the ISO 27001
standards for data security (Microsoft, 2023). The NVivo14 software, under a recent acquisition
by QSR International, also ascribed to the ISO 27001 standards and complied with GDPR;
47
however, at the start of the study, it was still awaiting ISO 27001 certification (QSR
International, 2021).
The Researcher
The researcher’s role in a constructivist grounded theory approach serves as a vital
instrument. Unlike Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original grounded theory method, Charmaz
(2014) acknowledged the researcher’s subjectivity and involvement in constructing and
interpreting the data when creating this branch of grounded theory. Therefore, because I utilized
a constructivist grounded theory to conduct this study, my role greatly influenced the
construction of the data. It also required that I maintain reflexivity during the research processes
for awareness of bias and was mindful that my preconceptions and privilege could influence data
analysis (Charmaz, 2014).
Data Collection
Global Compliance
The population of this study required me to consider various laws related to global data
protection when collecting data from human subjects as outlined in GDPR, because participants
may reside in the European Economic Area (EEA) and the state of California in the U.S. (Erdos,
2022; Kuner, 2023; Naegeli & Snyder, 2023). Under the guidelines outlined in GDPR, set forth
by the European Union and applicable to the United Kingdom upon Brexit, I did not collect
sensitive data and employed pseudonymization for participants and their collected data (Erdos,
2022; Kuner, 2023). Similarly, I applied the same data privacy compliance measures to all U.S.
participants, which adhered to the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) (Naegeli &
Snyder, 2023). Additionally, I only used software and technology that met GDPR requirements
and ascribed to or had received ISO 27001 certification during this study. This certification
48
grants one of the highest levels of data protection and privacy in the world to safeguard personal
data (Alfaadhel et al., 2023).
Constructivist Grounded Theory
A constructivist grounded theory study is appropriate for describing the participants’
perspective, understanding their lived experiences, thoughts, behaviors, and interactions with a
phenomenon (Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021; Marjan, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This study was designed to describe employees’ perceptions of inclusion using
CliftonStrengths® as a dimension of deep-level diversity in MNCs and how the organization
changed using Lewin’s theory of change model (Burnes, 2020; Lewin, 1947). Understanding the
phenomenon of inclusion creates the opportunity for human resources practitioners and Gallup®
certified CliftonStrengths® coaches to learn how to nurture a culture of inclusion using deep-
level diversity. Through the application of grounded theory, this study did not intend to predict
an outcome; however, it described ways leaders and organizations could transform perceived
inclusion using CliftonStrengths®.
Qualitative research includes numerous data collection materials and instruments,
including personal interviews and organizational artifacts, to understand and describe the
participants’ experiences (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Tie et al.,
2019). Charmaz and Thornberg (2021) advised that “most grounded theory studies are based on
interviews” (p. 307). Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, I collected the
accumulation of employees’ experiences of perceived inclusion based on their awareness of their
CliftonStrengths® and their colleagues’ CliftonStrengths®. The primary data collection type I
used for this study was the intensive interview method that Charmaz (2014) introduced, wherein
49
I guided the interview and collected data while the participant shared their in-depth experiences,
perceptions, and opinions related to the phenomenon.
Open-Ended Questionnaire
The open-ended questionnaire provided baseline data to begin the study. This study
employed purposeful sampling to capture and describe the employees’ diverse experiences at
Galaxy as the organization implemented and transformed the culture using CliftonStrengths®. In
collaboration with the CEO of Galaxy, I created communication for the CEO to disseminate via
email. This communication encompassed the study’s purpose, information on confidentiality,
data privacy, and protection measures, along with an anonymous link to the Qualtrics®
qualitative open-ended questionnaire described in Appendix B.
The open-ended questions in this questionnaire served as a baseline, offering context and
in-depth knowledge of the participants’ experiences, specifically regarding their perspective of
the change process. Flick (2019) and Erikson and Kovalainen (2011) recommended that
researchers utilizing grounded theory should adopt multiple data acquisition methods to ensure
validity and to spur the analytical process inherent to the method.
At the end of the open-ended questionnaire, participants actively selected their preference
for being contacted regarding their participation in the interview process of data collection. By
creating an option for participants to actively select to further engage in the interview process,
the study adhered to GDPR and CPRA principles, ensuring that the participant opted in, making
the choice voluntarily and of their own free will (Erdos, 2022; Kuner, 2023; Nageli & Snyder,
2023). As participants self-identified their willingness to participate in the interview process, I
screened the pool to ensure representation from each region of Galaxy, with at least one
individual contributor and one people leader included in the pool (Charmaz, 2014).
50
Intensive Interviews
Charmaz (2014) encouraged researchers using a constructivist grounded theory approach
to use intensive interviews as they provide flexibility while adhering to the systematic processes
initially prescribed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). In constructivist grounded theory, the “data
collection methods flow from the research questions,” guiding the researcher during the intensive
interviews (Charmaz, 2014; Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021). Charmaz (2014), Eriksson and
Kovalainen (2011), and Flick (2019) advised the novice grounded theory researcher to use an
interview guide to maintain continuity and confidence during the interviews but not to provide a
rigid structure to the interview process. Morse and Clark (2019) suggested that interview guides
allow researchers minimal structure to gather data and the flexibility to ask supplemental
questions. As questions emerge through the conversations, this practice empowers the researcher
to probe specific issues related to the topic of study and ask critical follow-up questions,
revealing deeper insights and additional data (Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021;
Kvale, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Given the flexible guidelines of using a grounded theory approach, I aimed to reach the
goal of saturation by conducting intensive interviews with 12 Galaxy employees (Charmaz,
2014; Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021; Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2011). Once I identified the 12
viable participants from the candidate pool, I sent invitations to prospective participants for
intensive interviews. The invitation included the purpose, focus, a brief description of the
intensive interview, and the consent form (Appendix C) to be electronically signed and returned
to me. This communication also included GDPR consent for all participants, regardless of
location (Kuner, 2023).
51
After securing the signed consent forms, I scheduled the interviews at convenient times
for the participants, considering the time zone differences between the U.S., APAC, and EMEA.
I conduct all interviews using Microsoft Teams software to adhere to GDPR and data transfer
regulations between the EEA and the United States (Kuner, 2023). The interviews followed the
method Charmaz (2014) described as intensive interviews. The interview protocol (Appendix C)
outlines the open-ended questions to gain insight into the “participants’ statements about their
experience, how they portray this experience, and what it means to them, as they indicate during
the interview” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 58). Since the participants will have relevant experience with
the phenomenon, I listened to the participants’ responses and took notes in a password-protected
document while creating casual conversation in a relaxed environment, in alignment with
Charmaz and Thornberg (2021) and Flick (2019).
Because I was employed at Galaxy during this study, maintaining confidentiality,
building trust, and fostering a welcoming environment without fear of retribution or negative
consequences based on the participants’ responses were essential responsibilities for me as the
researcher (Charmaz, 2014; Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021; Kuner, 2023). The interview guide
aided me in establishing an environment in which participants could freely share their authentic
stories and experiences to address the research questions. Charmaz (2014) described the
intensive interview as having three parts: initial open-ended questions, intermediate questions,
and ending questions. The initial questions began the conversation and centered the participant
and me in the context of the phenomena. In contrast, when I asked the intermediate questions, I
began collecting in-depth descriptions, which allowed me to probe deeper based on specific
participant responses.
52
The interviews concluded with ending questions that gently guided the participant back to
the “rhythm and pace of the interview,” transitioning into a normal conversation as the interview
ended (Charmaz, 2014, p. 66). Before leaving the interview, I asked if the participants would be
willing to engage in member-checking, where they could review the transcript and initial coding
to validate the data collected and provide necessary feedback. Member-checking is a qualitative
research process that creates quality in grounded theory studies whereby the researcher presents
the participant with the transcript and initial codes, ensuring that what the researcher captured
accurately describes the participants’ experiences (Charmaz, 2014; Charmaz & Thornberg,
2021).
Data Analysis
Using the constructivist grounded theory approach in a qualitative study requires the
systematic analysis of constant comparison (Charmaz, 2014). In a grounded theory study, data
analysis begins at the onset using line-by-line coding once the first interview has concluded
(Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021). The purpose of beginning data analysis at the
onset of the investigation is to “develop more pointed questions and ask about areas that…had
not anticipated would be important” (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021, p. 307). While coding, it is
critical to write memos about the codes along with additional questions that might arise related to
the coding (Charmaz, 2014; Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021; Tie et al., 2019). As questions arose, I
integrated them into future intensive interviews, given the flexible nature of constructivist
grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014; Flick, 2019). It is essential in grounded theory to continuously
compare and analyze “data with data, data with codes, codes with codes, and codes with
categories” (Charmaz, 2012, p. 4).
53
Researchers using grounded theory have three practices of coding processes based on
their selected method: traditional, evolved, or constructivist (Mills & Birks, 2017). The
constructivist ground theory approach to the coding process includes initial coding, focused
coding, and theoretical coding. The purpose of coding is to categorize data, generally with nouns
or gerunds, summarizing each segment and moving on to the next (Charmaz, 2014). The coding
process is critical to constructivist grounded theory as it links the data to developing categories
from which a possible theory may emerge (Charmaz, 2014, Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021). To
effectively organize and manage data and memos, Tie et al. (2019) recommended using the
NVivo software program for data analysis. During the initial coding phase, the researcher should
analyze and break down the data swiftly into fragments or small data segments for comparison
within the same or future data sets (Charmaz, 2014; Mills & Birks, 2017). Charmaz (2014) and
Charmaz and Thornberg (2021) advised using focused coding next, where the most frequent or
important codes become apparent, creating a solid underpinning for the data. The analytical
process of focused coding elicits excitement and ideation as themes emerge from the collected
data (Charmaz, 2014). The final coding phase is theoretical coding, whereby the researcher
brings the fragmented codes back together through storyline (Mills & Birks, 2017) to explicate
the findings for application (Charmaz, 2014; Flick, 2019; Mills & Birks, 2017).
As part of the data analysis in grounded theory, theoretical sampling is used, wherein
continuous data gathering builds saturation of each category. Once saturation occurs, “no new
properties of theoretical categories have emerged” (Charmaz, 2012, p. 11). This iterative process
provokes focused questions during interviews and provides substance to the data (Charmaz,
2012; Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021). Collecting comprehensive data generates an overarching
category to create a substantive theory for practical application (Charmaz, 2012; Charmaz &
54
Thornberg, 2021; Tie et al., 2019). In conclusion, the grounded theory’s rigorous theoretical
sampling and iterative data analysis facilitate the development of substantive theories with
practical application (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021).
Trustworthiness
Using the constructivist grounded theory approach supports the specifications for the
rigor of qualitative research. Lincoln and Gubba (1985) contended that trustworthiness emerges
in a qualitative study through credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
However, when using a constructivist grounded theory approach in a qualitative study,
trustworthiness manifests in credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness (Charmaz, 2006;
Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021; Mills & Birks, 2017). Mills and Birks (2017) reiterated the
valuable use of memoing in grounded theory because it supports reflexivity and the analytical
process and provides an audit trail, reinforcing quality within the study.
Credibility
Researchers conducting qualitative studies use triangulation frequently to build
credibility (Flick, 2019); however, I used memoing and reflexivity to increase the credibility of
the research. Charmaz (2014) and Flick (2019) asserted that employing triangulation in grounded
theory methodology does not prominently contribute to building credibility. Instead, as Mills and
Birks (2017) noted, memoing drives credibility in grounded theory as it weaves reflexivity and
analytical processes into the systematic structure of the study. Using the constant comparison
method and thoroughly analyzing data create credibility in constructivist grounded theory
(Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021). Charmaz and Thornberg (2021) argued that reflexivity also
generates credibility as the researcher investigates and questions “how hidden beliefs can enter
the research process” (p. 316).
55
Originality
The originality of this study lies in its extension of research on inclusion into the realm of
organizational change, utilizing the novel concept of CliftonStrengths® through the lens of deep-
level diversity. The concept of originality initially drew my attention, as it evoked Ideation®, one
of my natural talents. Charmaz and Thornberg (2021) contended that originality can “take varied
forms such as offering new insights, providing a fresh conceptualization of a recognized
problem, and establishing the significance of the analysis” (p. 316).
Resonance
The use of resonance in constructivist grounded theory builds trustworthiness by ensuring
that the concepts constructed are representative and accurate in depicting the participants’
experiences, providing meaningful and applicable insights (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021). The
reflexive process asks the researcher to continuously question the data, focusing on quality, not
quantity, and genuinely describing and capturing the essence of the participant's point of view
(Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021).
Usefulness
Similar to the conventional indicator of transferability in qualitative research, usefulness
enhances trustworthiness by elucidating data from participants in a manner that can convey
valuable knowledge to practitioners and policymakers, shedding light on new research areas
(Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021). This study provided a useful application for CliftonStrengths®
coaches, organizations focused on diversity management seeking novel ways to bolster their
culture of inclusion, human resource practitioners, and Galaxy.
56
Researcher’s Role
Mills and Birks (2017) emphasized the essential role of the researcher in employing a
grounded theory approach to research. In constructivist grounded theory, the researcher functions
as the main instrument, continuously active with the data and gaining insight from participants to
construct a potential theory grounded in the participants’ experiences, opinions, and perspectives
(Charmaz, 2014). In traditional grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967) advised that
researchers should only conduct the literature review after data analysis, mitigating the
prospective bias toward the data. Conversely, Charmaz (2014) argued that researchers should
have a foundational understanding of relevant literature to enhance their understanding of the
context and culture surrounding the phenomenon under study. Following Charmaz’s (2014)
recommendation to conduct a literature review before commencing the research, I gained a
deeper understanding of the influence of organizational change (Lewin, 1947) in fostering a
culture of inclusion. Drawing from this understanding, I developed a study that addressed the
research questions by exploring essential concepts in inclusion research, thereby adding to the
existing knowledge within the field of diversity management (Charmaz, 2014; Mills & Birks,
2017).
As the primary instrument in the collection and analysis of data, my role as the researcher
in a constructivist grounded theory approach required me to become intimate with the data,
ensuring that I accurately described and constructed data according to the experiences,
perspectives, and opinions of the study’s participants (Charmaz, 2014; Charmaz & Thornberg,
2021). I accomplished this, in part, by using reflexivity throughout the research process (Mills &
Birks, 2017). Reflexivity involves an ongoing and dynamic process where the researcher
continuously gains insights and records reflections on the research, drawing upon past
57
documentation to inform and guide the ongoing process (Charmaz, 2014; Mills & Birks, 2017).
To bring intention to reflexivity, I needed to be self-aware of my thoughts and actions related to
how I interpreted the data. I also maintained mindfulness about potential biases stemming from
my association with Galaxy, the participants, and practitioner knowledge. I maintained
objectivity throughout the research process by employing the member-checking process and
constant comparison of data, as described by Charmaz (2014) and Mills and Birks (2017). In the
role of interviewer, the importance of objectivity and remaining neutral toward comments about
Galaxy lent credibility and trustworthiness to the study.
Positionality and Bias
Throughout my career, I have engaged in diverse roles within multinational corporations
with colleagues in APAC, EMEA, and the Americas. These experiences have significantly
influenced my worldview, nurturing values of inclusivity and openness that extend beyond the
confines of my native United States. At the time of the study, I worked at Galaxy, leading
diversity management, engagement, and leadership development. I was and remain a certified
Gallup® CliftonStrengths® coach (Appendix D). I yearned to continue fostering an inclusive
global workplace where all employees feel they belong and are accepted, celebrating their
differences so they may have the opportunity to live their calling (Appendix E). Thus, this bias
impacted the topic and the population of this study.
Ethical Considerations
Enacting ethical considerations and constructs within this study, I ensured compliance
with IRB regulations, GDPR, and CPRA. Since this study involved potential participants from
the EEA, I completed the required IRB certification courses and an additional GDPR for
Research and Higher Ed course with certification (CITI Program, n.d.). Throughout this study, I
58
diligently adhered to the guidelines established by the Abilene Christian University IRB and
complied with Galaxy's GDPR and CPRA protocols.
I upheld ethical standards by obtaining informed consent (see Appendix C) and GDPR
consent from participants before conducting intensive interviews, preserving the confidentiality
of both participants and data, and employing password-protected data storage throughout the
study. I used pseudonyms for participants and secured the codebook in a password-protected file,
separate from the data. Since the topic of inclusion can elicit vulnerable conversation during
interviews, I prioritized the participants’ physical and mental health during their interaction.
To bolster data privacy and security, the study exclusively utilized third-party data
collection and analysis software that either aligned with or possessed ISO 27001 certification
(Alfaadhel et al., 2023; Erdos, 2022; Kuner, 2023; Nageli & Snyder, 2023). Further, I answered
all participants’ questions regarding participating in the study before conducting the interviews.
If a participant chose to withdraw from the study or exercise their rights as outlined in Chapter 3
of the GDPR, I would have fully adhered to the provisions established by the European Union.
For participants in the state of California who might have wished to exercise their rights, I would
have complied with applicable state laws.
Assumptions
This study’s success hinged in part on the assumption of participants’ truthful recounting
of their experiences, thoughts, perceptions, and opinions regarding Galaxy’s transformation
using CliftonStrengths® as a deep-level diversity construct to foster workplace inclusion. As I
was both an employee of Galaxy and a colleague to the participants, it became crucial for trust
and respect to be mutual. Participants were encouraged to offer their authentic experiences
59
regardless of their positivity, avoiding answering questions based on what they believed I wanted
to hear (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2011).
Limitations
Miles (2019) described limitations as “constraints to your study based on the research
methodology and design” (p. 2). By design, this study took place within a U.S.-headquartered
multinational corporation. One limitation of this study pertained to the generalization of results,
as not all corporate organizations are multinational or have headquarters in the United States. A
second limitation related to the complexities of global research and the interview processes. To
circumvent delays in the study and ensure equitable participant experiences, I chose not to
conduct in-person interviews due to the lengthy processes and clearance required from
governmental institutions for international data transport.
Delimitations
Delimitations are used in research to restrict the study, providing scope and alignment to
answer the research questions (Miles, 2019). This study encompassed the workplace inclusion
perceptions and experiences of individual contributors and people leaders within a single
organization. Among the employees at Galaxy, which included full-time, part-time, and contract
workers, only full-time employees constituted the participants of this study. Likewise, employees
then on leave of absence, those who had given notice of resignation, and individuals who had not
completed the CliftonStrengths® assessment were not considered eligible to participate. Finally,
although diversity management and equality are significant factors in diversity management, the
specific focus of this study centered on workplace inclusion, encompassing the concept of
belonging.
60
Summary
This chapter described the proposed methodology and research design to investigate
employees' perceptions of workplace inclusion. Acknowledging the subjectivity of the topic, I
chose a qualitative methodology, utilizing a constructivist grounded theory approach, which
proved most suitable to extrapolate the experiences, perspectives, and opinions of research
participants. This chapter identified the population and explained the use of purposeful sampling
to achieve meaningful data collection. The data were systematically collected and analyzed
through an open-ended survey and intensive interviews. This chapter concluded with an
overview of the study's ethical considerations, assumptions, limitations, and delimitations.
61
Chapter 4: Results
Based on constructivist grounded theory, this study delved into employees’ experience
within a multinational corporation to gain insights into how leaders foster an inclusive workplace
culture using CliftonStrengths®. This research offered a new perspective in comprehending
employees’ viewpoints on utilizing CliftonStrengths® as a facet of deep-level diversity to
enhance perceived inclusion within the workplace. Employing a qualitative research
methodology guided by a constructivist grounded theory approach, this study explored firsthand
narratives depicting how employees within an MNC experience inclusion through utilizing
CliftonStrengths®. Additionally, it investigated the influence of leaders in driving changes to
enhance inclusion.
The results outlined in this chapter were constructed from participant data to answer the
following research questions:
RQ1: How does associating CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity in the workplace
encourage a culture of inclusion in a U.S.-headquartered multinational corporation?
RQ2: How do leaders of MNCs influence organizational change to increase inclusion
using CliftonStrengths® in a U.S.-headquartered multinational corporation?
Chapter 4 begins by providing a comprehensive overview of participant recruitment and
data collection processes, shedding light on the procedures involved in securing relevant study
participants. Following this, the chapter provides a detailed description of the characteristics
exhibited by the interview participants, offering valuable insights into the backgrounds of those
contributing to the study. The narrative then describes the data analysis phase, where the
obtained information is dissected and constructed to address the core research questions. The
results presented align with the overarching goals of the study. Lastly, the chapter concludes by
62
summarizing the significant processes traversed throughout the research study, providing readers
with an understanding of the chapter’s content and significance in the broader context of the
study.
Setting and Participant Recruitment
The setting for this study was a medium-sized U.S.-headquartered MNC in the corporate
mobility industry. North Texas hosts Galaxy’s headquarters, with three regional offices across
the United States constituting approximately three-fourths of the employee population. Outside
the U.S., the organization maintains two offices in APAC and five in EMEA, evidencing a global
footprint. As a global organization, Galaxy faces governmental limitations in collecting and
reporting surface-level diversity demographics such as age, ethnicity, or race adhering to GDPR;
thus, this information is not presented and is counter to the study’s focus on deep-level diversity.
Galaxy prides itself on being an organization rich in culture, using the Gallup® suite of
products to monitor, enhance, and develop the employee experience. Some of the Gallup®
resources utilized include the Gallup Q12 Engagement survey and Culture of Inclusion Index
conducted semiannually, the ESG5 Index, the Wellbeing Index, and most applicable to this
study, the CliftonStrengths® assessment in conjunction with the Gallup access portal. Galaxy
administers the CliftonStrengths® assessment to all employees, with people leaders receiving the
full 34 CliftonStrengths® results and individual contributors receiving their top 5
CliftonStrengths® results.
This study employed two modalities to collect data guided by constructivist grounded
theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014). The first instrument was a five-question questionnaire,
and the second was virtual intensive interviews. In compliance with GDPR and CPRA
63
regulations, all response data were securely stored using Abilene Christian University’s Google
Drive.
Recruiting Open-Ended Questionnaire Participants
Once approval from Abilene Christian University’s Institutional review board was
received (Appendix A), participants were recruited by inviting all Galaxy employees to
participate in the open-ended questionnaire. The open-ended questionnaire was then distributed
to all employees via email, and data were gathered using the Qualtrics® platform through the
student licensing agreement with Abilene Christian University. The use of Qualtrics® versus
other questionnaire platforms was necessary for the success of this study, as Galaxy uses
Qualtrics® internally for its experience management program, providing the familiarity necessary
for employees to complete the questionnaire.
The open-ended questionnaire was designed to establish a foundational understanding of
employees’ varied experiences concerning the workplace inclusion phenomenon. Hearing
firsthand from employees describing their point of view of inclusion and how CliftonStrengths®
are used to foster an inclusive environment provided valuable baseline insight to understanding
the processes that help or hinder the manifestation of inclusion at Galaxy. Employees identifying
as employed full-time and having previously completed the CliftonStrengths® assessment were
eligible to participate.
Recruiting Intensive Interview Participants
The 12 intensive interview participants were selected from a pool of identified
individuals at Galaxy. To recruit potential participants for the intensive interviews, the final
question in the questionnaire inquired whether the participants were open to and willing to
participate in an interview. Thirty-three participants, a little over half of the viable participants
64
completing the open-ended questionnaire, expressed willingness to participate in an intensive
interview. Table 3 indicates the participant's willingness to participate in a subsequent intensive
interview.
Table 3
Intensive Interview Participant Participation Status
Participation type
Number of
participants
Participation
rate %
Not Willing to Participate
26
44
Willing to Participate
33
56
The selection criteria for the intensive interviews followed the study’s approved
methodology. This process warranted the purposive sampling of no more than 12 participants as
approved by Abilene Christian University’s IRB, with at least one individual contributor and one
people leader selected from each of Galaxy’s three global regions. Charmaz (2014) emphasized
that constructivist grounded theory should not be confined to a specific sample size due to the
unpredictable factor of reaching saturation, where no new data are revealed. On the other hand,
Morse and Clark (2019) indicated that a minimum sample of 10 participants is feasible when
saturation is achieved. In this study, saturation was achieved after the intensive interview with
Participant 11; however, an intensive interview was conducted with Participant 12 to confirm
saturation and ensure the data representation of Galaxy’s three global regions. The recruitment
phase of the study provided 33 viable participants eligible for intensive interviews. Eighteen of
the participants were individual contributors, and 15 potential participants were people leaders.
This participant pool provided ample selection for the final 12 intensive interviews.
65
Data Collection Process
The study data were collected through an open-ended questionnaire (Appendix B) and
intensive interviews (Appendix C), aligning with the constructivist grounded theory approach.
The open-ended questionnaire served as a recruitment mechanism for the intensive interviews
and provided a foundation of knowledge related to the lived experiences of Galaxy’s employees
and their views on inclusion, CliftonStrengths®, and organizational change and processes. The
intensive interviews allowed the study participants to share their lived experiences with the
inclusion phenomenon from their perspective and voice, providing ample information to address
the research questions.
Open-Ended Questionnaire Data Collection
The open-ended questionnaire aimed to create a baseline understanding of how
employees view and experience inclusion within the context of a multinational corporation.
Participants were asked to articulate their perspectives on inclusion and share their experiences
in implementing and applying CliftonStrengths® assessment through the distribution of five
open-ended questions using Qualtrics®. Since the purpose of the questionnaire was to gain an
understanding of employees’ experience of inclusion and using CliftonStrengths®, no
unnecessary data were collected related to demographics complying with data collection
procedures outlined in GDPR (Erdos, 2022; Kuner, 2023). In total, 73 employees completed the
informed consent, with 59 answering questions on the open-ended questionnaire. The data were
collected in Qualtrics®’ secure platform and transmitted to the NVivo14 platform for further data
analysis using the Qualtrics® API Token for authentication. Table 4 illustrates the completion
status of the open-ended questionnaire participants.
66
Table 4
Open-Ended Questionnaire Participant Completion Status
Consent type
Number of
participants
Completion
rate %
Signed Informed Consent
73
100
Completed Questionnaire
59
81
Intensive Interview Data Collection
The intensive interview process was this study’s second step of data collection. A
hallmark of constructivist grounded theory uses what Charmaz (2014) called intensive
interviews. Despite the stern connotation of the term, the interviews aimed to elicit data through
probing techniques, seeking to attain a profound understanding of the participants’ experiences
associated with the phenomenon and accurately articulate them.
The intensive interviews followed the interview protocol using open-ended questions to
elicit and describe the participants’ experiences related to the phenomenon of workplace
inclusion. Each intensive interview was conducted virtually to ensure similar experiences for
each participant and limit the physical transport of international data. Upon receiving signed
consent forms, the intensive interviews were scheduled during a convenient time appropriate to
the participants' respective global time zones. The intensive interviews ranged from 27 to 60
minutes, with an average of 45 minutes. No intensive interview exceeded the protocol of 60
minutes, and all were conducted and recorded via Microsoft Teams video conferencing with the
participants’ permission.
The video and audio transcripts were kept secure using Google Drive through Abilene
Christian University. The transcripts were then edited to ensure accuracy and sentiment
alignment with the video recording. After transcripts were reviewed for accuracy and coded, they
67
were emailed to the participant for their review to confirm the accuracy and that the associated
codes aligned with the description of their documented experience. No changes were advised by
any of the participants. Memos were made using the NVivo14 software during data collection to
capture thoughts, ideas, questions, and observations. These memos included distinct observations
of participants’ physical and verbal signals and questions that arose while continually comparing
data, codes, and categories. Using memos for reflexivity provided insight into how interview
questions could be modified, or new questions could be added to ensure the most prolific data
were captured in the intensive interviews to address the research questions.
Intensive Interview Participant Characteristics
Most of the participants willing to share their experiences in the intensive interviews
were from the U.S., with a few being from APAC and EMEA. The final selection of Galaxy
participants included seven employees from the U.S., three from EMEA, and two from APAC.
Five of the participants were people leaders, and seven were individual contributors. During the
intensive interviews, participants identified their number one CliftonStrengths® theme that
symbolized their uniqueness. Only two participants shared the same number one
CliftonStrengths® theme. Most participants had their number one CliftonStrengths® theme in the
Executing domain, with some having it in the Influencing domain. A few participants had their
number one CliftonStrengths® theme in the Relationship Building or Strategic Thinking domain.
This overview highlights the profound deep-level diversity linked to the CliftonStrengths®
themes of the participants. Additional theme documentation is withheld to ensure the anonymity
of the participants. Each participant was identified with a pseudonym to ensure anonymity, as
illustrated in Table 5.
68
Table 5
Intensive Interview Participant Characteristics
Pseudonym
Global
region
Function
Number one
CliftonStrengths® theme
Adelaide
EMEA
Individual Contributor
Woo®
Anna
APAC
People Leader
Responsibility®
Brigid
EMEA
Individual Contributor
Communication®
Clare
AMER
People Leader
Relator®
Geneviève
EMEA
People Leader
Arranger®
Gregory
AMER
Individual Contributor
Restorative™
Issac
AMER
People Leader
Context®
Leo
AMER
Individual Contributor
Harmony®
Lucy
APAC
Individual Contributor
Responsibility ®
Mark
AMER
Individual Contributor
Achiever®
Rose
AMER
Individual Contributor
Command®
Theodora
AMER
People Leader
Input®
Data Analysis
In constructivist grounded theory studies, diligent data management and constant data
comparison are essential for success. After collecting responses from the open-ended
questionnaire, the responses were reviewed for viability to ensure the validity and integrity of the
data set. Constructivist grounded theory methodology assumes everything is considered data;
thus, it is worth emphasizing that questions with a blank or n/a response were included as
valuable data. The absence of a response offers meaningful insight. Then, the data were imported
from Abilene Christan University’s Qualtrics® platform into the NVivo14 software for initial
analysis.
69
The analytical process of constant data comparison is inherent to the constructivist
grounded theory approach and is evidenced in the iterative processes of initial, focused, and
theoretical coding. The initial coding phase included reviewing questionnaire data using the line-
by-line technique, whereby introductory codes were created to break down the data sets,
revealing visible and invisible thoughts, experiences, and processes within the participants’
responses. The initial codes served as a starting point to identify potential relationships between
them, facilitating the creation of categories for focused coding. Using the concept map feature of
the NVivo14 software, initial codes were used to compare data and align like codes and data,
creating categories and emerging focused codes. Through this iterative process of constant
comparison, theoretical themes developed, bringing the initial codes together into a cohesive
storyline.
The analysis of the intensive interviews followed a similar process. After each intensive
interview, a memo was recorded in the NVivo14 software to capture an in-the-moment
recollection of the experience and note observations or questions relating to the participant or
their responses from my point of view. As the data were obtained through digital recordings, the
video files and corresponding transcripts were downloaded, and the transcripts underwent a
scrubbing process to ensure accuracy. Maintaining data hygiene is critical in constructivist
ground theory research, as the data are a verbatim account of the participants’ descriptions and
experiences. Therefore, referring to the recorded video file saved on Abilene Christian
University’s secure Google Drive was necessary and ensured the accuracy of the transcript.
Because some participants spoke in various global English dialects and considering my hearing
disability, the closed captioning feature on the video recording was advantageous for handling
challenging transcript segments.
70
As the subsequent intensive interviews concluded, the transcripts were then coded line-
by-line to identify initial codes. Once the initial coding was completed, the coded transcript was
sent to the participant for member checking, a process that reviews the accuracy of the transcript
and the associated codes. This process allowed the participants to validate or question the initial
codes. No participants dissented from the codes assigned to their transcripts. As member
checking concluded, the initial codes were compared to the existing focused codes for alignment
or to generate a new conceptual category. As new ideas and relationships emerged, memos were
noted and reflected upon, consistently compared to data and codes, and used to raise focused
codes to thematic categories. Examining the data, codes, categories, and memos facilitated
reflexivity by challenging my assumptions, precisely conflicting with my third CliftonStrengths®
theme, Self-Assurance®. This process allowed for a thorough analysis of the phenomenon and
created a storyline to integrate the fragmented codes and categories into theoretical codes.
The thematic categories that emerged through this grounded theory study resulted from
thoroughly analyzing participant data and understanding their experiences as described in the
intensive interviews. The constant comparison of data, codes, and memos supported the analytic
rigor of a grounded theory study. The focused codes and thematic categories ultimately
generated a theoretical scheme answering the research questions. The subsequent sections of this
chapter elucidate the codes and categories constructed during the identification of concealed
assumptions and relationships within the data. This process culminated in the construction of the
theoretical scheme, which was achieved by continuously comparing the questionnaire and
intensive interview data.
71
Codes on Encouraging Inclusion Using CliftonStrengths®
The open-ended questionnaire data formed the basis for establishing initial coding and
focused coding. This process aimed to comprehend, describe, and identify relationships among
the data. Upon completing the initial and focused coding, a word frequency analysis in NVivo14
validated the codes’ alignment with the raw data. Four themes emerged as the data were
analyzed using focused coding and signaled how CliftonStrengths® could be used through the
lens of deep-level diversity to positively impact employees' perceived inclusion. These themes
materialized before the intensive interviews and assisted in shaping additional questions and
determining when to probe deeper into an interview conversation to better understand how the
participant would describe their experience related to the emergent themes. These four themes
delineate, from the participant’s perspective, how (a) raising awareness of deep-level diversity,
(b) valuing differences among colleagues, (c) enhancing interactions with colleagues, and (d)
fostering intentional collaboration present an avenue to promote a culture of inclusion through
the association of CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity.
Raising Awareness of Deep-level Diversity. The data led to the construction of 37 codes
associated with increasing awareness of deep-level diversity and its impact on fostering
perceived inclusion. The focused codes corresponding to this theme encompassed participants’
inclination to integrate their understanding of CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity,
recognize others’ perspectives, and share their CliftonStrengths® with colleagues throughout the
organization. The majority of the intensive interview participants agreed that the current
connection of CliftonStrengths® to deep-level diversity is not widely recognized. For some of the
intensive interview participants, deep-level diversity was a term they had not heard before our
conversation.
72
When asked about deep-level diversity and its association with CliftonStrengths®
interview participant Adelaide acknowledged the term's novelty, affirming, “It seems logical
now that you say it, but it’s something that I never thought about.” Her response exemplifies the
disconnect described by participants; however, she gained a clearer understanding upon
establishing the connection. Interview participant Gregory expressed optimism regarding the
association of CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity, articulating, “I feel like maybe we
haven’t done enough to deep dive per se into how we bridge the gap. But I mean, oh my
goodness, I would love for us to be able to.”
Interview participant Issac emphasized the importance of raising awareness of deep-level
diversity when leading employees and how it has shaped conversations to create vulnerability
and trust with those he leads.
I think if you understand someone’s CliftonStrengths® and you have had some
background in those, what they are, what they are not, they do give you a lens into that
person’s mindset. Their drivers. Their passions. But what CliftonStrengths® is identifying
is some of those things that are a little bit underneath the surface. I think it opens the
conversation to have that dialogue where you can get into some vulnerable areas and gain
some trust but expose some of that deep-level diversity that may exist for both of us. And
we’ll understand each other a little bit better, and then I think that changes the
relationship between whether it’s employer/employee or colleague/colleague and how to
work better together.
At the beginning of the interview process, Brigid underscored the significance of
promoting awareness of deep-level diversity by linking it to comprehending others’ perspectives
and fostering an inclusive environment by understanding colleagues’ differences.
73
At the time when we first took the CliftonStrengths®, I remember another colleague at the
time having a very different skill base than I did. But later on, as we worked more
together, I think that made a lot more sense in terms of how they approached their work
because we had two very different approaches to how we engaged with our customers
[and] how we engage with the projects that we were working on. And then when you
could see their strengths written in black and white, it made a lot more sense to me,
whereas I thought, you know, I thought maybe I was doing something wrong.
Interview participant Clare described her perspective on the correlation between
CliftonStrengths® and deep-level diversity, highlighting how sharing CliftonStrengths® themes
raises awareness of deep-level diversity and fosters workplace inclusion.
It talks to those things that you can’t see that that individual is strongest at and then
allows you to look for different ways to draw those individuals into conversations and
perspectives on different topics. So, we’re trying to make sure that we’re able to really
look at those strengths and talk to them fluidly.
Valuing Differences Among Colleagues. The data revealed 48 codes that were aligned
with the theme of valuing differences among colleagues to promote a culture of inclusion
through the utilization of CliftonStrengths®. Within the focused coding of the open-ended
questionnaire, participants emphasized the importance of comprehending colleagues’
differences. They noted that by participating in the CliftonStrengths® assessment, they could
utilize the insights to foster inclusion instead of relying on assumptions in their interactions.
Furthermore, an equally significant aspect was the concept of exclusion and the potential
unintended exclusion of a colleague due to misinterpretation rather than valuing them for their
differences to establish an inclusive environment.
74
A questionnaire participant provided their viewpoint on the influence of comprehending
their colleagues’ differences and the team’s daily navigation of such distinctions.
Since we began using CliftonStrengths®, we have assessed each team member’s strongest
strengths, and discussed how these strengths influence each person’s work style, and how
that can fit into the team dynamic. Additionally, we discussed how each other’s strengths
can be used to assist each other.
Likewise, intensive interview participant Mark conveyed his experience in understanding
strengths different from his own and called attention to the importance of acknowledging these
differences. He emphasized the implications of supporting others based on their primary
CliftonStrengths® themes.
Because at times, you look at my number one, which is Achiever®, and I’ve had to
double down on empathy and compassion and understanding others because I can get a
bee in my bonnet at times if I feel like, well, why are you not achieving this? Like it’s
right here for you. You know, I’ve set you up for success, or I set up this team for
success, and I don’t feel the same level of drive that other people feel. So, I’ve had to
really take a step back and say, well, that’s you. That’s not necessarily others, you can’t
project on other people. That might not be a strength of theirs or something that is even in
their top, so it’s helped me quite a bit as I navigate through leading client relationships
and trying to imprint on team members.
When speaking about how the team will evolve the use of CliftonStrengths®, interview
participant Clare conveyed that acknowledging differences in others can foster inclusion instead
of potential exclusion. This is achieved by inviting individuals with diverse perspectives to
participate, thereby enhancing deep-level diversity through awareness of CliftonStrengths®.
75
I think it’s kind of the next evolution in building off of Gallup® and CliftonStrengths®
because using the strengths and looking at each of the individuals in your organization
and looking at the diversity of those strengths really allow you to look at areas where
you’re very much alike or different or perhaps you don’t have a strength at all where you
might want to invite a new member that brings some of those areas that you’re, maybe
your group is not as strong in.
A questionnaire participant shared the consequences of others not understanding
individual differences. They emphasized the adverse impact of individuals being stereotyped or
labeled based on their strengths.
We learned about who we are as individuals. Then we used our profiles to compare who
we are and why we may perform in a different manner from our colleagues, how we can
best understand each other and work together. My strengths are not viewed as strengths, I
am labeled as difficult.
Interview participant Lucy shared a contrasting experience with her colleagues,
highlighting how the awareness of their differences strengthens their relationships. This
awareness provides a means to value their strengths to benefit both parties mutually.
So, knowing my colleagues are strong respectively, actually helps me to learn about them
better. Like, what are their priorities in terms of the strength, and how to leverage their
strength to help me as well as the team to move forward with tasks or even questions that
come from customers and such.
Enhancing Interactions With Colleagues. The theme of enhancing interactions with
colleagues emerged through the construction of 39 codes associated with personal interaction
and its role in cultivating a culture of inclusion. Predominately grounded in building
76
relationships, aligning with the CliftonStrengths® domain of Relationship Building, the focused
codes described the significance of self-awareness and recognizing others’ CliftonStrengths®.
Participants who demonstrated heightened self-awareness of their CliftonStrengths® were
attentive to adjusting their behavior during interactions with colleagues. They focused on
leveraging the power of their strengths while preventing it from becoming a barrier to their
engagement with colleagues. The consensus among most participants in the intensive interviews
affirmed that CliftonStrengths® was pivotal in nurturing inclusion by enhancing relationships
across the organization.
Interview participant Geneviève acknowledged the efficacy of applying the
CliftonStrengths® themes of a colleague when faced with a challenging situation that required
effective communication to improve outcomes.
To use the more psychological side of things on how to speak to people or how to
approach them on a certain matter, yeah, I think it could be a good idea, if you know
someone’s strength, because I have one of my colleagues, she’s all in one same color
[dominant CliftonStrengths® domain]. So, I wouldn’t know probably how to approach
her if I went to her, to share some ideas with her, or ask her what she thinks about
something. And maybe, you know, have a different approach on how to talk to her or
where I will talk to someone else. I suppose that is also the whole point of the process is
also help to understand people and to have them understand others. The management will
understand more the people they work with, and for the employees to feel that they are
understood by the management.
Interview participant Rose discussed the importance of self-awareness in communication.
She described the practice of modulating her Command® CliftonStrengths® theme to mitigate
77
any abrasiveness during conversations. This adjustment aimed to ensure a more positive
experience for the person she was engaging with.
In relation to CliftonStrengths®, the best benefit would be to know their communication
style. How do they like to receive information and questions? For example, I know my
communication style is relatively direct, and I’ve been working more on being able to not
just answer a question with what is the correct answer but expanding on it so that not
only when the recipient of the answer has the answer, and they can comprehend it, but
that they can then go and explain it to somebody else.
Interview participant Clare demonstrated the impact of recognizing the strengths of
others, emphasizing its role in increasing perceived inclusion and encouraging employee
engagement. When probed further about the topic, she described a specific situation and detailed
the employee's response.
I have one employee who I would personally not have guessed that her number one
strength was Strategic®. And so, I’ve literally gone out of my way when we’re having
some of our strategy discussions with the team and said, [speaking to the employee]
okay, I need your help here and bring her into the conversation. I wouldn’t necessarily
have known to do that from a surface-level [diversity]. So, it’s really interesting to, you
know, find someone whose strength was not necessarily something that you saw, but
that’s something your team needs, and then pull them into those conversations. Definitely
feel like that has done a lot to bring participation and engagement to the teams that I’m
leading at this point. I think she was delighted and shocked that I actually remembered.
She leaned forward, and she was very smiley. It was a compliment that I acknowledged it
and recognized that in her and asked her to, you know, give her thoughts.
78
Interview participant Anna detailed an experience where one of her employees
recognized a strength in a colleague and leveraged that strength to assist her in delivering a better
customer experience.
One employee lacks that relationship domain, and they are struggling to build rapport
with the customers, then someone who has that strength will come in and give examples
of how they can develop that relationship or that domain to assist with the customer.
Interview participant Issac recalled the advantages of utilizing CliftonStrengths®
externally with his team and the client. This approach facilitated the establishment of a more
profound respect for their differences and similarities, creating an opportunity to fortify the
relationship between the client team and his team.
You know the one thing that I ended up taking away from that…it just deepened the
relationship between our team and their team. And again, I think if there’s one thing that I
would say about CliftonStrengths® and this assessment, is that it opens dialogue for
conversation and builds deeper trust and relationships between colleagues, between
employees in the organization, and that is worth its weight in gold, frankly, and in terms
of just the value and having this neutral topic that has positive attributes only to then
work through with your employees in a safe and trusting spot.
Interview participant Theodora described the role of self-awareness in catalyzing change
when building relationships with colleagues. Through assuming leadership of a new team and
incorporating CliftonStrengths® within a brief timeframe, she observed a notable improvement in
employee interactions, further strengthening their relationships.
And so some of the things that I found most interesting this year was I had people that
really had epiphanies over this stuff, you know, and they were on my team and they were
79
like, wow, now I get why I did all these crazy things, you know, and they were able to
talk to it in their own words to the others on the team. And there’s no better selling point
than that when you can have somebody in their own words to say how in just three or
four months, you know how they were really able to work with somebody who was so
different from them.
Fostering Intentional Collaboration. The data revealed 15 codes aligning with the
theme of fostering intentional collaboration between employees to encourage a culture of
inclusion. The initial codes substantiate concepts describing how employees derived value from
their colleagues’ CliftonStrengths® once they acquired knowledge of them. Furthermore, these
initial codes indicate an augmentation in individual and team performance resulting from
utilizing colleagues’ CliftonStrengths® in collaborative scenarios. A significant proportion of
participants in the intensive interviews expounded on the value attributed to understanding their
colleagues’ CliftonStrengths® and the positive impact it wielded on overall engagement.
A questionnaire participant exemplified the significance of understanding their
colleagues’ CliftonStrengths® and highlighted how collaboration with others could enhance
performance by leveraging strengths that they might not possess in abundance.
For example, I am a Woo®, so I am great at giving presentations on the fly. I should
partner with a team member who is an Analytical® person to help me perfect a topic for
the presentation, as I tend to be slower at this.
Interview participant Leo acknowledged how colleagues often sought his Harmony®
strength to communicate with customers or suppliers, demonstrating successful collaboration.
Although Leo initially could not recall the exact name of the CliftonStrengths® theme, it became
clear later in the interview.
80
I feel like a lot of our job is the communicative part with the transferees, and with
supplier partners and any kind of communication stuff I feel super comfortable with.
That’s what I studied in college, so I am very comfortable there, and I actually have a lot
of people who will reach out to me for that kind of thing. I don’t remember the name of
the strength, but one of my top five was some kind of peacekeeper or something like that.
Like being a mediator kind of thing. And so, we have transferees who get frustrated and
upset, so I’ll often have people reach out saying hey, can you help me figure out this
email so it’s not coming off like I’m being aggressive or anything like that, and I help
them find balance. And then vice versa, I’m not great with numbers so when stuff like
that comes up, I will reach out to others on the team who I know are more analytical.
Interview participant Brigid outlined her approach to utilizing colleagues’
CliftonStrengths® and establishing relationships during her integration into a new team
physically located in a different country. Leveraging the strengths of her colleagues allowed her
to adapt her natural course of action, thereby enhancing the level of customer service she could
provide.
So, if I had a question and I know that my next in line, or manager or whoever at the
time, if I know their strengths were not really going to be the thing that I needed to help
me, you know there are people who are a lot more empathetic than I am. For example, I
can be very statistical and very black and white in terms of where my decisions lie and I
can be very policy driven for example. And I can say no, that’s not in the policy. We’re
not providing it, goodbye. It’s not happening. Whereas somebody with a lot more
empathy than me would probably look at this and go no, there’s a way that we can look at
this in a more emotional investigation of the case. How can we make an argument for
81
them for this exception? [Using CliftonStrengths®] engages my decision making, because
I might go to the next person, and they might not be as empathetic. They might have the
same outlook as I do, and sometimes it’s nice to have a second perspective on something
before you make a final decision that would impact the customer.
Interview participant Mark described the outcomes of several team sessions, accentuating
the value colleagues gained by acquiring knowledge of each other’s CliftonStrengths® to
increase collaboration and implementing their strengths in their daily work activities.
I think the way that they communicated did change as well because they realized again
that they can be more collaborative, even more so than they thought. And it was also
reinforcing, too, because when somebody had a top five strength that was, you know,
different than all the others in the group, we were like, okay, we understand. This is why
you are the way you are when it comes to this, like you might be quiet and reserved, but
it’s only because you’re very strategic and you’re thinking, you know, you’re playing
chess while other people are playing checkers.
Interview participant Theodora underscored her utilization of her direct reports’
CliftonStrengths® to enhance her leadership capabilities. Acknowledging that her lower strengths
align with the top five strengths of her individual contributors, she explained how she engages in
debriefs with employees after meetings to gain insights that she might not have otherwise
known.
And for those that had very different strengths, I have one employee who works for me,
they have Empathy® as their number one, and I have Empathy® as my number 34. So, we
still get along great, but when I’m in meetings with them, I’ll say to them afterwards. I’m
like, what did you get from that? Like they’ll just give me their viewpoint on how other
82
people perceived the meeting right, because they’re so good at just reading the group and
they’ll say so and so didn’t seem like they were engaged or they didn’t seem like they got
it. So, we’re always going to have like these little sessions afterwards to talk about things
that I might not have picked up on. So, we do try to complement each other through
[collaboration].
Codes on Leaders Influencing Change Using CliftonStrengths®
The initial coding of responses from the open-ended questionnaire unveiled the pivotal
role of a leader in effecting change within their team and organization to enhance inclusion
through the utilization of CliftonStrengths®. Question three of the open-ended questionnaire
sought participants’ insights into changes observed in the team following the implementation of
CliftonStrengths®, while question four explored challenges encountered in using
CliftonStrengths®. These inquiries yielded 98 valid responses, encompassing recommendations
for leaders and the organization. The suggestions focused on enhancing the utilization of
CliftonStrengths® through new learning opportunities, areas where leaders could improve, and
additional Gallup® resources. Three themes emerged through focused coding of the open-ended
questionnaire and intensive interview data identifying how leaders can influence change to
increase inclusion using CliftonStrengths®. The emergent themes encapsulate (a) the significance
of creating a strategy for using CliftonStrengths®, (b) fostering and advancing employees'
knowledge, and (c) the utilization of this knowledge for organizational success.
Creating Strategy. In the initial coding phase, 87 codes were constructed based on
participants’ descriptions, clarifying the importance of developing a strategy for effectively
utilizing the CliftonStrengths® framework. More than half of the participants in the intensive
interviews expressed the perception that utilizing CliftonStrengths® holds potential. However,
83
they noted a lack of consistency in its application by their leaders. Further focused coding
highlighted the leader’s role in formulating strategy and cultivating employee buy-in as a
fundamental element.
The open-ended questionnaire had 23 distinct responses revealing variations in the
frequency of CliftonStrengths® usage across the organization. One questionnaire respondent
stated that “due to work volume, not much has been done to date,” whereas another participant
indicated that after the initial team meeting, “we compared each other's results but didn’t do
much otherwise.” In contrast, another questionnaire participant shared their excitement,
exclaiming, “Additionally, we talk about our strengths collaboratively to ensure when working
on projects if we have a blindspot that we tap into someone with that strength to minimize our
blindspot! :-)”
Interview participant Gregory recounted his experience with his leader’s inconsistent
application of the CliftonStrengths® framework. He expressed envy for the robust utilization of
the framework by another leader in the company and admired how that team seamlessly
integrated it into their daily workflow.
We don’t talk about it too frequently. We really don’t even refer back to it today. I feel
like if we refer back, it’s me saying oh, that’s such the learner in me. I know another
leader in the org who she does very heavily whenever there’s an incoming project from
the account that she oversees, she will look at the CliftonStrengths® first and foremost to
then be able to say, okay, let me digest, understand the project, and now I’m going to
delegate to specific team members based on their CliftonStrengths®, which when I heard
that, I was like oh my goodness! Like, that’s brilliant! Obviously, let’s divide and
conquer and utilize our strengths to be able to put our best foot forward on a project.
84
Interview participant Clare shared insight when probed about consistency, detailing her
approach to promoting the use of CliftonStrengths® under her leadership. The ongoing practice
and repetition of integrating CliftonStrengths® have yielded positive benefits, particularly in
enhanced engagement and inclusion.
I think it’s doing the different exercises, utilizing the tools and resources that they have
available in Gallup ® Access to try to make sure that we’re using the CliftonStrengths®
that we’re looking at. How do we draw those out? How do we use that with engagement
and diversity and inclusion, and you know, again, it’s that consistency where I think it
makes a difference. Then I think it does start to flow a little bit more so that people then
are more comfortable bringing it up, you know, their strengths to the discussion.
In response to inquiries regarding the leader’s role in formulating a strategy for using
CliftonStrengths®, interview participant Rose conveyed apprehension about the absence of
consistent discussions concerning strengths in the context of goal setting and the managerial role
in facilitating effective integration.
And I do think that it is on management to allow space for a variety of priorities to occur.
And that’s why I believe it is management’s duty to free up their employees’ brain space.
I do not think we have much business talking about CliftonStrengths® at this moment
because we have a lot of other demands coming at a very fast pace. I do think that, for
example, January is a bit of a slow season, maybe that would be a good time, but it
cannot be the only time; there can’t be periods of focus and then periods of resurfacing.
When discussing the manager’s role, interview participant Geneviève shared uncertainty
regarding whether her manager was aware of her CliftonStrengths® or her peers’. This lack of
discussion was described in meetings and on a personal level.
85
Well, with my manager, he’s in another country, so with me, no. With my team, no. And
with my peers, I don’t think so. We haven’t shared even though we have a call every
week together, we haven’t shared anything on that level together. I don’t know if…oh
yea, so they're my manager, they would have done their CliftonStrengths®, but do they
know mine?
Interview Participant Anna recounted a challenge she faced in navigating the process of
garnering increased buy-in from employees. She expressed her aspiration for them to enhance
their self-awareness and recognize the benefits of identifying and using CliftonStrengths® at the
onset of their professional careers.
We have team members, and again, this will go back to culture. We do have team
members who did this exercise for the sake of doing. And to them, if I’m not going to get
a promotion, so what if I have these strengths? So, I think that still needs to change in
terms of the mindset and being open to accepting what the organization or the leaders
have actually developed as a power for them. And it takes two hands to clap, and I am a
strong believer that I could be paving the path for you based on your strengths. But if you
don’t come to the party, we can’t travel down the road together.
Evolving Knowledge. The data revealed 76 codes through the initial coding phase
related to the significance of enhancing the knowledge base of CliftonStrengths®. Across both
the open-ended questionnaire and intensive interviews, participants expressed a strong desire for
additional information and resources to deepen their understanding of how to use and apply the
CliftonStrengths® framework, irrespective of whether they were novice or advanced users of the
methodology. A critical discernment emerged through focused coding, emphasizing the
advantage of employing the actual CliftonStrengths® language rather than assuming that the
86
strength was inherently understood.
Interview participant Adelaide shared that while she derived value from the initial team
meeting, there is room for improvement in understanding the meanings of strengths and how to
apply them in daily work.
When we got the result, we talked about it during a meeting once. We talked about good
points and how we could work together to make everything better. I don’t remember
which ones now anymore, but I do know that there were a few where I was thinking if it
would be in my language I would have understood better. I think adding the chat all
together was good, but maybe having a chat with each member and maybe having one
every three months? Maybe to see what has been done and like to prepare some plans,
like some objectives for the following months.
Interview participant Theodora delineated her experience being assigned to a team for a
brief duration, noting that the new team had not been provided additional development
opportunities. In recounting the scenario involving a new employee on the team, she highlighted
the individual's eagerness to learn more and develop.
They’re coming to work with you. Well, you’re only going to have them for three
months. So, should I invest in them during that 3-month period? I was like, hell yeah, I’m
investing in these people, you know, because who knows, I could spark something in
them, and I felt like with one of the folks, I really did have a little bit of a breakthrough.
She was looking at my interaction, and she was really into it you know, so we had some
one one-on-ones and we talked about our strengths. And so, I love that when people raise
their hand, they’re like, I want more. I want to talk to you about it more. I kind of felt at
the end I said to her, look, even though I’m not your manager anymore, this is still your
87
journey. Here’s where you go, use the website. Go on there every once in a while, read
some topics, and listen to some podcasts.
When asked about the value of using CliftonStrengths® terminology, interview
participant Clare stated that it’s not only important to know the words and what they mean
“because some of the strengths are just not top of mind, others are very self-explanatory.”
Interview participant Issac concurred with Clare, emphasizing that leaders have “got to get
familiar with the nomenclature; if you don’t, then you won’t be able to have the next
conversation.”
Interview participant Leo articulated the potential value of visual representations in
facilitating the learning of the names and meanings of CliftonStrengths®. The visual aid could
enhance the ease of integrating the CliftonStrengths® language into conversations with
colleagues.
We’re just not using the specific terminology. Bringing additional awareness to team
member's strengths would be beneficial. I think it would be helpful to just generate a
chart. I remember when we were going through everybody’s strengths and everything
that it was on a spreadsheet. This is everybody’s top five. If that was consistently
available and we had the definitions of what each theme was, I think that would be
helpful. Again, I don’t even remember my own top five.
When asked about visible representations of CliftonStrengths®, interview participant
Brigid described her experience working in a globally hybrid team, where her immediate work
team is in another country. Despite having colleagues in a physical office, they do not share the
same function within the organization. This situation poses a challenge, as her virtual team is
88
acquainted with her CliftonStrengths® while those physically around her are not, leading to
occasional feelings of disconnection.
No, we don’t have anything like that in the office, unfortunately. I feel like it would open
up the conversation a lot more. Because you have the visual aid there to reference.
Whereas, if I said to somebody, hey, what’s your top five strengths out of nowhere, it can
be very jarring. If it’s just written on their desk or something like that, cool. I have a
strength in that category as well, and then you can discuss it a little bit more.
Application of CliftonStrengths® for Organizational Success. The initial coding
process resulted in 53 codes centered around the theme of applying CliftonStrengths® to generate
organizational success. The focused codes demonstrated the utilization of strengths to enhance
the alignment of employees with their current roles and projects within the organization. The
success observed by leaders and teams in using CliftonStrengths® is indicative of its contribution
to fostering a more inclusive organizational culture.
An open-ended questionnaire participant shared how their leader uses each employee's
CliftonStrengths® to bring efficiency to the team, stating, “My leader used CliftonStrengths® of
our entire management team to create specialized work streams and project assignments that fit
to each person’s strengths.” Another open-ended questionnaire participant stated they “will
continue to leverage CliftonStrengths® to identify how to optimize our team member’s unique
skills and talent to uplevel them within the organization.”
Interview participant Lucy expounded on her experience, detailing how her management
team acknowledged her ability to align her Strategic® theme, enhancing her decision-making
skills in customer interactions. This recognition accentuates the practical application of
CliftonStrengths® in optimizing individual strengths for improved professional outcomes.
89
The management team actually guide me to think in a straight line to build out a strategy
or have the strategic thinking in terms of unique cases where we don’t see on a daily
basis, like what can be done to this, what are the alternatives and such. So, they helped
me with the thinking to improve my performance. The guidance actually let me see if I
were to do this, then what’s the consequences? And instead, the outcome that I’m going
for helped me to actually better decide on what should be the next step.
Interview participant Mark emphasized the criticality of aligning and connecting
CliftonStrengths® to a specific role in the organization, necessitating a mindset adjustment. He
noted that such alignment significantly increases the likelihood of employees delivering high-
quality customer service. This scenario reiterates the strategic importance of integrating
CliftonStrengths® for role-based optimization and enhanced service outcomes.
If you’ve had any background, at least on the client services side, in operations, you can
see the difference that CliftonStrengths® can make because on the operations team, you
are really responsible for being that frontline individual who’s talking to our relocating
customers and families. You better believe that if you’re not playing to your strengths,
and bringing that out with your customers as part of their journey, you’re kind of doing
yourself a disservice. You’re not harnessing as much potential as you could for that
interaction or that relationship that you’re building.
Interview participant Issac recounted the impact of incorporating CliftonStrengths®
within his leadership team. He highlighted a specific instance in which an employee, leveraging
her CliftonStrengths®, successfully reimagined an organizational event for clients, elevating it to
a new level of success, exemplifying the transformative potential of integrating
CliftonStrengths® in enhancing organizational initiatives.
90
For example, one employee took on the client partner forum, she has Arranger® as one of
her top CliftonStrengths®. The forum is a complete arrangement exercise to take our top
clients through this exercise, and there wasn’t anybody that questioned that it should be
her based upon that exercise [strength identification]. We just finished our third one
[Client Forum] this year, and it was our best one yet!
Interview participant Anna elaborated on the impact of an optimization exercise led by
her leader. The exercise aimed to ensure management aligned with the correct clients based on
the employees’ CliftonStrengths®. This optimization exercise demonstrates the significance of
leveraging individual strengths for effective client management.
When we went through the exercise of optimization, that was when we were using the
strengths of the individuals to recognize whether they are a good fit for certain clients.
And for myself, my manager will recognize that for me as an individual, I’m fantastic
with relationship building, that perhaps I lack on the operations part of the job scope, so
he would pair me with clients who are less operational but more on relationship building.
And so, for the accounts that I look after are clients who really want that TLC [tender
loving care].
Summary
This chapter presented a coherent and systematic description of the study results,
delineating the transformation of initial codes into focused codes and subsequently into themes
conducive to a potential theoretical scheme. The open-ended questionnaire had 59 participants
providing foundational information to construct a knowledge base and influence the questions of
the intensive interviews of 12 participants from three global regions. The data was consistently
compared with other data, codes, and categories, a hallmark of the constructivist grounded theory
91
approach to qualitative research. Memos were made using the NVivo14 software to challenge
assumptions and provide relevance to the data analysis process. The emergent themes regarding
the implications of using CliftonStrengths® to encourage a culture of inclusion describe (a)
raising awareness of the association of CliftonStrengths® to deep-level diversity, (b) valuing
differences among colleagues, (c) enhancing interactions with colleagues, and (d) fostering
intentional collaboration within the workplace. Three themes were constructed to inform how
leaders can influence change to increase inclusion by (a) creating intentional strategy, (b)
evolving employee knowledge of the CliftonStrengths® framework, and (c) applying
CliftonStrengths® for organizational success. Chapter 5 will describe the interconnections among
the identified themes, offering theoretical implications of the scheme and explicating the
research’s alignment with the prevailing research on workplace inclusion.
92
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The purpose of this qualitative constructivist grounded theory study was to delineate the
methods employed by leaders within Galaxy to augment organizational inclusivity, harnessing
the power of CliftonStrengths® through the lens of deep-level diversity. Therefore, the
cultivation of workplace inclusion stands as an integral facet of promoting a positive employee
experience. Employees who perceive inclusion in the workplace sense that their distinct
attributes are appreciated and experience a profound sense of belonging within the organizational
culture (Seppala & Cameron, 2015). This positive perception significantly contributes to
heightened levels of engagement, productivity, and overall wellbeing among employees (Hodges
& Clifton, 2004; Shore & Chung, 2023). The Gallup® CliftonStrengths® assessment is a tool
capable of fostering awareness regarding individual and team deep-level diversity, thereby
facilitating the augmentation of workplace inclusion.
Following a constructivist grounded theory approach, this study explored employees’
experiences with inclusion to comprehend how associating CliftonStrengths® with deep-level
diversity encourages perceived inclusion. Furthermore, the study sought to understand the role of
leaders in effecting change by utilizing CliftonStrengths® to enhance inclusion within the context
of a multinational corporation. The results of this study provide context for practitioners and
certified CliftonStrengths® coaches as a reference point for bringing awareness to deep-level
diversity and increasing workplace inclusion using the Gallup® CliftonStrengths® assessment.
This chapter begins with a general discussion of the results pertinent to the themes
corresponding to Shore and Chung’s (2023) leader inclusion and exclusion model and Lewin’s
(1947) theory of change, contextualized within the backdrop of existing literature. Then, the
theoretical schema is introduced, offering insight into the potential utilization of
93
CliftonStrengths® by leaders within the framework of deep-level diversity to improve workplace
inclusion. Based on the study results, implications are made for certified CliftonStrengths®
coaches and human resource practitioners. Chapter 5 concludes by outlining study limitations
and recommendations for future research.
Research Questions
RQ1: How does associating CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity in the workplace
encourage a culture of inclusion in a U.S.-headquartered multinational corporation?
RQ2: How do leaders of MNCs influence organizational change to increase inclusion
using CliftonStrengths® in a U.S.-headquartered multinational corporation?
Discussion
Leaders wield considerable influence over an employee’s perceived sense of workplace
inclusion (Randel et al., 2018). The leader inclusion and exclusion model, formulated by Shore
and Chung (2023), delineates that leaders effectively fostering workplace inclusion demonstrate
three pivotal dimensions: (a) advocate, (b) ally, and (c) role model. This study underscored the
significance of all three dimensions as explained in participants’ narratives concerning their
experience pertinent to research question one. To actualize workplace inclusion, organizational
leaders may need to adapt or adopt novel practices to align with the organizational values of
inclusivity (Burnes, 2020). This study associated Lewin’s (1947) change theory in addressing
question two, exploring the mechanisms through which leaders affect change by leveraging
CliftonStrengths®.
Associating CliftonStrengths® With Deep-Level Diversity
The results of this study identified four themes answering how associating
CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity encourages a culture of inclusion in a multinational
94
corporation: (a) raising awareness of deep-level diversity, (b) valuing differences among
colleagues, (c) enhancing interactions with colleagues, and (d) fostering intentional
collaboration. Each thematic element corresponds to what Shore and Chung (2023) delineated as
indispensable dimensions of inclusive leadership, as illustrated in Figure 1. This model illustrates
how the advocate domain and the ally domain generate individual enhancing outcomes, whereas
the role model dimension supports business positive outcomes.
Figure 1
Dimensions of Inclusive Leadership
Advocate Dimension. In order to embody inclusivity, a leader must engage in advocacy
and foster an environment that constantly promotes diversity management concepts (Shore &
Chung, 2023; van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2022). Therefore, leaders employing
CliftonStrengths® within the framework of deep-level diversity should raise awareness regarding
95
the connection between CliftonStrengths® and deep-level diversity. An overwhelming majority
of participants in the study lacked familiarity with the term deep-level diversity. However, upon
understanding the term, they quickly established a connection and comprehended the
effectiveness of situating CliftonStrengths® within the context of deep-level diversity (van
Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2022). Upon grasping the correlation, Adelaide and Gregory
recognized the potential for their respective leaders or the broader organization to underscore this
connection, thereby establishing a more robust application of inclusion based on their
colleagues’ deep-level diversity.
Ally Dimension. When leaders embody the qualities of an ally, they proactively strive to
mitigate exclusion by engaging in advocacy and impartially supporting the differences among
their employees (Shore & Chung, 2023). Some participants shared instances in which their
leader incorporated CliftonStrengths® into team meetings, consistently applied strengths
spotting, and thereby acknowledged and heightened awareness of the distinctive differences
within the team and the value each member contributes to the collective team (Rath & Conchie,
2008; Clifton & Harter, 2023). Nonetheless, a participant in the open-ended questionnaire subtly
suggested that their leader did not exhibit allyship, as they were stereotypically perceived as
challenging to collaborate with due to their strengths, minimizing their uniqueness and perceived
inclusion (Shore et al., 2011). This illustration demonstrates allyship’s significance in examining
CliftonStrengths® within the framework of deep-level diversity (Shore & Chung, 2023).
Role-Model Dimension. Leaders should inherently serve as exemplars for their
employees by virtue of their designated role, exhibiting attributes that employees ought to
emulate (Shore & Chung, 2023). This role extends to the actualization of inclusion by enhancing
interactions with colleagues and fostering intentional collaboration rooted in colleagues’
96
CliftonStrengths®. When Clare conscientiously considered her employees’ strengths and utilized
one of them in a conversation, she amplified the employees’ perceived inclusion through active
involvement and meaningful interaction (Brimhall et al., 2017). In an alternative approach, Mark
employed self-awareness to modify the intensity of his Achiever® strength for more effective
leadership with colleagues. This adjustment acknowledges that not all his employees may aspire
to achieve tasks with the same inclination as he does, demonstrating respect for employee
uniqueness and contributing to an inclusive workplace culture (Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018).
These two instances exemplify the need for leaders to proactively role-model strengths-based
inclusion with their employees, aspiring to instill behaviors that foster heightened perceived
inclusion in the workplace.
Likewise, when leaders purposefully role-model collaboration through the utilization of
CliftonStrengths®, their employees understand how leveraging others’ CliftonStrengths® within
the framework of deep-level diversity has the potential to elevate perceived inclusion levels (van
Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2022). Deliberately, Theodora collaborated with one of her
employees to harness their CliftonStrengths®, explicitly focusing on the employee’s Empathy®
since it is the least pronounced among Theodora’s strengths. The intentional collaboration
illustrated in this example satisfies an inherent requirement of Theodora’s leadership
competence, simultaneously allowing employees to be respected for their uniqueness (Farh et al.,
2020).
Leaders Influencing Change
The findings of this study addressed the inquiry into how leaders influence change to
increase inclusion by employing CliftonStrengths® through three emerging themes: (a) creating
intentional strategy, (b) evolving employee knowledge, and (c) applying CliftonStrengths® for
97
success. These three thematic elements elucidate the change process identified by Lewin (1947)
as imperative for the successful transformation of an organization. Figure 2 delineates the
influential change process leaders appear to undergo when employing CliftonStrengths® to
increase workplace inclusion.
Figure 2
Leaders Influencing Change Using CliftonStrengths®
Creating Intentional Strategy. To begin the change process, leaders must first
comprehend the aspects needing modification, enabling the team or organization to implement
the necessary adjustments to realize their anticipated transformation (Burnes, 2020; Lewin,
1947). The data revealed instances where certain leaders demonstrated an absence of deliberate
utilization of CliftonStrengths®, while other participants noted a lack of role-modeling
consistency in incorporating CliftonStrengths® into their practices (Shore & Chung, 2023).
Considering these two scenarios, it is evident that certain leaders may not possess an equivalent
level of commitment, potentially diminishing their motivation to employ the framework with
their employees. Issac and Gregory each recounted instances where it was evident that
CliftonStrengths® was brought up only when they deliberately incorporated it into the
conversation (Watkins et al., 2022). Conversely, Geneviève expressed uncertainty regarding her
98
leader’s advocacy of her CliftonStrengths®, as they had never been addressed at either an
individual or team level, reinforcing her perceived lack of inclusion (Jansen & Searle, 2021;
Shore & Chung, 2023). These examples emphasize the organization’s need to purposefully
deconstruct current practices and infuse intention into utilizing CliftonStrengths®, ensuring
uniformity among all leaders (Burnes, 2020).
Evolving Employee Knowledge. All participants in the open-ended questionnaire and
intensive interviews recognized the need to evolve their knowledge about CliftonStrengths®.
While noteworthy, this revelation attests to employees’ desires to learn, develop, and practically
apply their acquired knowledge and for their respective leaders to recognize and nurture these
desires (Shore & Chung, 2023). Clare and Theodora demonstrated resourcefulness in procuring
support for the development of their employees. Nevertheless, a propensity towards further
learning and identification of additional resources for their leadership repertoire was deemed
imperative to sustain effectiveness. Although all leaders have access to Gallup® resources,
including strengths grids, Leo and Brigid disclosed that they lack a visual representation of their
teams’ strengths, impeding their utilization of their colleagues’ CliftonStrengths® (Shore &
Chung, 2023). Leaders who create and share strength grids like other teams will likely
experience increased perceived inclusion among their employees. This practice establishes
equitable resources across all teams. Lewin (1947) contended that the effectiveness of change is
contingent upon the leader taking adequate measures to integrate the needs of those whom the
change will impact.
Applying CliftonStrengths® for Success. To solidify the change process of harnessing
CliftonStrengths® to increase inclusion, leaders should demonstrate the application of
CliftonStrengths® to attain individual, team, and organizational success (Burnes, 2020; Shore &
99
Chung, 2023). The effectiveness of this practice was evidenced by Lucy when she narrated how
her management team facilitates intentionally, connecting them to other colleagues with a
strength they could leverage to impact the customer experience positively. This practice builds
reciprocity among employees to seek out the deep-level diversity of their colleagues for success,
reinforcing positive behaviors necessary to sustain change (Hodges & Clifton, 2004; Lewin,
1947). Anna conveyed how using CliftonStrengths® in an optimization exercise promoted the
practical application of strengths. This exercise created inclusion based on the deep-level
diversity inherent to CliftonStrengths® to identify manager alignment and create a foundation for
successful client relations (Burnes, 2020; Jansen & Searle, 2021; Shore & Chung, 2023).
Theoretical Schema
The research conducted within this constructivist grounded theory study integrates
participants’ lived experiences into a theoretical schema. This schema is the amalgamation of the
association of CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity and how leaders influence change to
increase organizational inclusion. The schema describes the process beginning with (A) creating
an intentional strategy for leaders to align with, either reinforcing current practices or introducing
new ones to support their success using CliftonStrengths®. The next phase of the schema
incorporates (B) evolving employee knowledge by 1) raising awareness of deep-level diversity,
2) valuing differences among colleagues, 3) enhancing interactions with colleagues, and 4)
fostering intentional collaboration. In this phase, both individual enhancing outcomes and
business positive outcomes are possible and mitigated by the leader’s intentionality and
consistency. The final phase is the culmination of intentional strategy and evolving employee
knowledge in (C) applying CliftonStrengths® for success. The schema developed based on this
research emphasizes the interrelation between leaders utilizing CliftonStrengths® within the
100
context of deep-level diversity and the scope of influence leaders wield in effecting change to
augment inclusion through applying CliftonStrengths® assessment data, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Harnessing the Power of CliftonStrengths® to Encourage Inclusion Schema
Implications for Practical Application
The existing literature does not explicitly link the CliftonStrengths® assessment with
deep-level diversity or the broader domain of diversity management. Primarily,
CliftonStrengths® is associated with higher education and organizational leadership programs.
This novel application of CliftonStrengths® provides leaders with a new way of using the
assessment data and a new pathway to positively impact employee perceived inclusion. These
recommendations for practical application are grounded in the data generated by the open-ended
questionnaire data and the narratives of intensive interview participants, aligning with the
schema described above. The results of this study indicate that practical applications exist for
101
Galaxy, the organization under study, as well as for certified CliftonStrengths® coaches and
human resource practitioners.
Based on the results of this study, several suggestions were generated for Galaxy to
increase inclusion using CliftonStrengths® in the context of deep-level diversity. Initially, the
leadership team at Galaxy should seek to comprehend the current utilization or nonutilization of
CliftonStrengths® by leaders in the three global regions. Based on those assessment results, the
leaders can identify where change needs to occur, how to achieve consistency, and how to
enhance the intentional use of CliftonStrengths® across the organization (Burnes, 2020).
Establishing consistency and purpose in applying CliftonStrengths® aligns with the identified
expectation expressed by the study participants. While not all leaders may necessitate extensive
adjustments, this process can recalibrate the operating environment by establishing uniform
expectations for utilization across all leadership roles (Burnes, 2020).
Second, upon reintroducing the CliftonStrengths® approach, leaders should be attentive to
linking the association of CliftonStrengths® with the concept of deep-level diversity, serving as
an advocate for creating a culture of inclusion (Shore & Chung, 2023). Given the participants’
general lack of familiarity with the connection, it is crucial to draw a parallel to strengthen
Galaxy’s commitment and dedication to inclusion and diversity. Supplemental training may be
required to address the knowledge gap; nonetheless, as gleaned from the data, a robust desire for
learning and development exists throughout the organization. This training could include
additional resources available to employees in the Gallup® Access portal or other mediums
across the organization. Considering Galaxy’s strong commitment to inclusion and diversity, it
would be beneficial to solidify this expectation within organizational policies or formulate a
comprehensive policy specifically for diversity management. This policy could incorporate
102
language defining deep-level diversity and explain its positive impact on organizational success
(Rabl et al., 2020).
Third, Galaxy should identify ways to visually represent CliftonStrengths® internally.
This representation could be physical or digital to bring awareness to colleagues
CliftonStrengths®. Based on participant experiences, the lack of knowledge inhibits the potential
use of strengths, which could otherwise increase positive customer interactions, beneficial cross-
functional collaboration, or facilitate more effective conversations with colleagues of differing
cultures across the organization, all while enhancing the culture of inclusion (Brimhall et al.,
2017; Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018). By creating a common language of CliftonStrengths®
throughout the organization, employees can value their colleagues’ differences respectfully and
meaningfully.
Fourth, employing the positive psychology perspective, Galaxy could formulate
strategies to celebrate and acknowledge the use of CliftonStrengths® during collaborative efforts,
further emphasizing intentional usage of the CliftonStrengths® language. Participants identified
that inferences could be made about strengths usage; however, the explicit use of the 34
CliftonStrengths® terms reinforces the language, creating a stronger foundation for consistent
application (Ciarrochi et al., 2022). When giving praise or recognition, leaders could employ
CliftonStrengths® language to highlight how the employees’ natural talent contributed to their
success, reinforcing the value of their uniqueness to facilitate a sense of belonging. When this
occurs, perceived inclusion increases (Shore et al., 2011).
Fifth, to increase employee engagement, Galaxy should review how one region uses
CliftonStrengths®, facilitating an optimization exercise whereby employees’ CliftonStrengths®
are assessed against their current role to identify if they are in a right-fit role or could potentially
103
be placed in another role more conducive to their strengths (Rath & Conchie, 2008; Watkins et
al., 2022). When employees are recognized for their inherent talents and positioned in roles in
which they can leverage those strengths to attain success, their perceived inclusion tends to rise,
thereby likely resulting in enhanced job performance (Shore et al., 2011; Rath & Conchie, 2008;
Watkins et al., 2022). As leaders role-model this behavior, as Shore and Chung (2023)
suggested, the leader gains credibility and trust, increasing the psychological safety between the
employees and their leader.
Limitations
This study focused on the perceived inclusion of employees in a multinational
corporation and the influence leaders have on increasing inclusion through the application of
CliftonStrengths®. A notable limitation of this study is that the data are comprised of
participants’ subjective experiences, which hinge on the complexities of human behavior
(Charmaz, 2014). The descriptions of the participants' experiences may be susceptible to
influences stemming from their leadership figures, CliftonStrengths®, and other external and
internal factors. These influences, however, were not subject to control within the confines of
this study. Another limitation of this study pertains to the process of data collection, wherein the
originally intended in-person intensive interviews were substituted with virtual interactions. This
departure from the initial design introduces a limitation in the study’s methodology; however, for
consistency, all intensive interviews were conducted virtually to mitigate additional limitations.
A concluding limitation acknowledged by Charmaz (2014) as a strength within the constructivist
grounded theory methodology pertains to my involvement in constructing the data derived from
participants engaged in intensive interviews. By selecting the words for the codes, categories,
and themes, I defined the significant experiences represented in the data. Taking the sage advice
104
Charmaz (2014) and Urquhart (2023) suggested, the practices of reflexivity and memoing played
a pivotal role in minimizing the limitation mentioned above.
Recommendations for Future Research
In the current body of research, this study is one of the initial inquiries into the
correlation between CliftonStrengths® and deep-level diversity, examining the potential for
augmenting organizational inclusion within a multinational corporation. Given the novelty of this
research, substantiating the theoretical schema in subsequent studies would be of considerable
value. Since this study used a constructivist grounded theory approach in a qualitative tradition,
using a quantitative study could prove beneficial in assessing the efficacy of the constructed
schema.
A second recommendation for prospective research involves devising a study that aligns
employee data on perceived inclusion, utilizing CliftonStrengths® and assessing congruence in
perceptions of inclusive leadership with their respective leaders. This study could scrutinize the
leader’s role in addressing the dimensions of advocate, ally, and role model, as outlined by Shore
and Chung (2023), to determine their impact on workplace inclusion. The outcome of this study
could benefit leaders and human resource practitioners in developing organizational training on
becoming more competent in each dimension by using their CliftonStrengths®.
Another recommendation for investigation would be to replicate this study with a
deliberate focus on acquiring the complete list of each participant’s 34 CliftonStrengths®. The
potential objective would be to discern potential patterns that signify the likelihood of increasing
inclusion or belonging based on the meaning associated with each theme (Brimhall et al., 2017;
Rath & Conchie, 2008). The findings of this study could assist individuals in recognizing which
of their strengths has the greatest propensity to foster inclusion in the teams they lead.
105
Finally, a fourth suggestion for future research could include understanding the
relationship between the Gallup® Culture of Inclusion Index and employees’ CliftonStrengths®.
While the Culture of Inclusion Index provides insight to organizations on their level of perceived
inclusion, it neglects to account for their deep-level diversity, as identified by their distinctive
CliftonStrengths®. Possessing this knowledge would afford organizations the means to
implement programs tailored to address the needs of employees with specific CliftonStrengths®,
fostering a more inclusive culture.
Summary
In a dynamic and evolving world, recognizing and valuing individual uniqueness while
fostering a sense of belonging is imperative for organizations wanting to demonstrate inclusion
(Brimhall et al., 2017). This philosophy ensures the establishment of a workplace where
employees feel respected and included rather than ostracized, where surface-level diversity is
acknowledged, and where deep-level diversity is appreciated (Brimhall & Mor Barak, 2018;
Shore et al., 2018). This research focuses on the importance of examining CliftonStrengths®
within the framework of deep-level diversity, providing novel insights into the efficacy and
direction of fostering more inclusive workplaces. The results of this research aim to create new
pathways for leaders where all employees, irrespective of their geographical location, have the
opportunity to flourish.
Galaxy presented an optimal organizational context for investigating the impact of
associating CliftonStrengths® with deep-level diversity as the CliftonStrengths® assessment is
administered to all employees within the organization. In this constructivist grounded theory
study, employees’ lived experiences concerning the phenomenon of inclusion were explicated in
a narrative format. Throughout the study, I constructed initial codes, categories, and themes,
106
constantly comparing data to conceptualize a theoretical schema grounded in the perspectives
derived from participant data. This schema uses CliftonStrengths® in a novel way to offer
leaders, human resource practitioners, and certified CliftonStrengths® coaches an alternative way
to enhance organizational inclusion.
The theoretical schema can assist leaders in influencing change within their team or
organization using CliftonStrengths® to impact perceived inclusion positively. Since the schema
was constructed using a constructivist grounded theory approach, it provides insight into the
needs of employees and the significant factors that contribute to or diminish inclusion. The
application of the theoretical schema defines areas that have the potential to yield individual
enhancing and business positive outcomes, contributing to the evolving knowledge of employees
within the organization. Leaders who comprehend the positive influence of CliftonStrengths® on
inclusion, as described by the theoretical schema, can profoundly shape the organizational
perspective regarding the advantages of deep-level diversity.
