How exclusive are inclusive organisations?

• Published date: 11 March 2014
• Pages: 220-234
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2012-0066
• Date: 11 March 2014
• Author: Laura Dobusch

How exclusive are inclusive

organisations?

Laura Dobusch

Department of Inclusion & Disability,

Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, Munich, Germany

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to anchor the buzzword “inclusive organisation” in a theory-based

perspective by identifying meanings of inclusion and exclusion in various scientific discourses.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides an overview about inclusion/exclusion and

its different usage in four “western” scientific discourses. By analysing the role of organisations in

each discourse, relevant aspects for specifying the conce pt of “inclusive organisations” are identified.

Findings – The concept of “inclusive organisations” needs to be grounded in a wider industry context

for determining adequate action strategies towards inclusiveness. More attention should be paid to the

excluding effects of including measures and resulting changes in power relations.

Research limitations/implications – The conceptual approach of the paper needs to be anchored

in further empirical research on the measurability of inclusion/exclusion within organisations and on

the implementation of organisational practices towards more inclusiveness.

Originality/value – The value of the paper is its interdisciplinary approach to concepts of

organisational inclusion and exclusion that are usually analysed separately. This fresh perspective

paves the way for an original contribution to further develop the idea of “inclusive organisations”.

Keywords Diversity, Inclusion, Power relations, Exclusion, Inclusive organization

Paper type General review

1. Introduction

“Inclusive organisation” is a slippery concept to define because it refers to the term

“inclusion”. Indeed, inclusion represents a “cross-category” (Link, 2003, p. 14), which

travels through various scientific, public and everyday discourses and is thus far from

being unambiguous. Therefore, it is remarkable that inclusion is mostly implicitly

referenced in studies about membership, diversity and inequality in organisations and

seldom explicitly addressed (e.g. Brose et al., 1994). In this paper I therefore strive to provide

an overview of different scientific discourses on inclusion (and exclusion) to substantiate

the conceptual and theoretical content of the buzzword “inclusive organisation”.

As shown below, the definition of inclusion is twofold: on the one hand, it adheres

to the general understanding of inclusion as a process and condition where people

gain access to areas from which they were formerly un/-intentionally excluded

(see Sections 2 and 3). Here inclusion is considered as a desirable goal, while

exclusion needs to be transcended. Against this backg round, the development of

measurement criteria ( Janssens and Zanoni, 2008; Mor Barak, 2000; Mor Barak and

Cherin, 1998; Pelled et al., 1999) for individuals’ inclusion/exclusion statu s in an

organisation is necessary in order to conduct empirically grounded research

(see Section 5). On the other hand, inclusion and exclusion are considered as

constitutively related which means that every inclusion implies an exclusion and

vice-versa (see Section 4). This analytical perspective – in contrast to the normative

one – raises awareness about the excluding side-effects of measures that actually strive

towards inclusion. Thus, according to these two approaches, “inclusive o rganisations”

are understood as, on the one hand, sensitive to power relations, which are embedded

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

Received 8 August 2012

Revised 14 March 2013

Accepted 24 June 2013

Equality, Diversityand Inc lusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 33 No. 3, 2014

pp. 220-234

rEmeraldGroup PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI -08-2012-0066

220

EDI

33,3