Do Nuanced Perspectives of Diversity Management Practices Warrant Inclusivity in Multigenerational Organizations? A Meta-Analytic Review

Over 58% of human resource management practitioners in the world over report work conflicts among employees stemming from disparities in multigenerational workforces. A plethora of studies reveal that organizations that are incognizant to generational diversity often encounter social cognitive and identity conflicts that polarize the existent multigenerational workforce in the workplace. The study is anchored on the leader-member exchange theory that envisages the standard of leader-member relationship as critical in promoting diverse and inclusive work environments. The study searched for diversity management and inclusivity studies published between 2013 and 2023 from all organizational and business research indices. Only empirical studies that related diversity management practices and inclusivity to constructive or deleterious outcomes were aggregated for the purposes of establishing average effect sizes. After applying Cohen’s d test, the study pooled effect size of 0.7, indicating that the difference between the two groups’ means presents overarching effects on the study variables. Managers or leaders need to inculcate an inclusive work environment that permeates psychological safety and a sense of belongingness among employees so as to promote a work climate that amplifies employees’ voices and innovative work opinions. The study supplements the limited meta-analysis findings on the part that inclusivity plays in differentiated diversity management practices, particularly in multigenerational organizations that are continually evolving. The study validates the leader-member exchange theory by accentuating the crucial role of leaders in promoting high latitudes of psychological safety across in-group and out-group dynamics.

Introduction

The highly evolving demographic dividends in the world have continued to usher in several levels of Multigenerational workforce in the workplace. However, inharmonic disparities among employees from different generational cohorts continue to hinder optimal employee participation in work organizations, which subsequently reduces sustainable economic growth worldwide. Although diversity management and inclusivity practices are sometimes used interchangeably or even confused to mean the same, they are distinct concepts that refer to unequivocal constructs. Given the growing empirical voids in diversity literature, designing effective diversity management practices has become a notable concern for both private and public sectors, with an increasing number of contemporary organizations expressing interest in adopting such practices (Hur & Strickland, 2015). Remarkably, PWC’s findings reveal that a mere 8% of organizations globally integrate multigenerational workforces into their diversity and inclusivity initiatives, while a plethora of literature sustains that inclusivity is a panacea to workplace discrimination issues. However, there is still a dire need for in-depth reviews that offer tailored recommendations for implementing inclusivity practices in the workplace, as such efforts sometimes become a double-edged sword. Remarkably, there is limited understanding which diversity management practices are most impactful and in which types of institutions they are most efficacious. Diversity management practices involve the establishment of formalized organizational systems, processes, or policies that enable efficient handling of a diverse employee base. These practices encompass procedures such as recruitment and training that adhere to the organization’s diversity management policies, for instance, as espoused in Park and Liang (2020), Yadav and Lenka (2020). For purposes of this research, diversity management practices will be conceptualized as linking strategy to diversity, recruitment for diversity, diversity management training, and work-life flexibility (Köllen, 2021; Morfaki & Morfaki, 2022), and this conceptualization is premised on its relevance to the emerging needs of multigenerational organizations (Chunget al., 2020; Shoreet al., 2011).

The conceptual understanding behind inclusivity is to recognize and appreciate the value of diverse viewpoints and experiences by acknowledging and valuing the contributions of individuals and considering their insights in order to create meaningful organizational outcomes (Martinez-Acosta & Favero, 2018). However, there is still insufficiency in literature in defining inclusivity as a concept, as well as methods of fostering a climate of inclusivity in the workplace (Ashikaliet al., 2021). Early studies largely recommend a definition of inclusivity where employees feel accepted and appreciated as enablers to workforce participation (Gotsis & Grimani, 2017; Mor Barak, 2015). Nevertheless, more recent studies have targeted at defining inclusivity in its specificity. According to and Nyagadzaet al. (2022), extant literature operationalizes inclusivity in terms of belongingness and psychological safety, while a myriad of studies operationalize inclusivity in terms of comparison to exclusivity (Perry & Li, 2019). Accordingly, this study will measure inclusivity based on the parameters of belongingness and psychological safety (Shore & Chung, 2023) because these constructs comprehensively inculcate the exclusivity and inclusivity dimensions.

Literature Review

Diversity management practices have emerged as a growing burden for organizations today due to the insufficiency of knowledge on how to attract and retain new generations of employees as baby boomers move to the periphery of retirement. Remarkably, millennials in public institutions are susceptible to higher turnover intention index compared to other generations (Ertas, 2015). Conversely, baby boomers exhibit higher organizational commitment compared to generation Xers, who primarily value job satisfaction in the workspace (Black & Hyer, 2020). Given the exponential proliferation of the diversity management phenomenon in recent studies, it is worth noting that contemporary organizations may need a re-evaluation of their existent multigenerational workforces and analysis of how these inform the institutional recruitment, promotion, and retention practices.

Regardless of the fact that numerous diversity practices and programs have been integrated into organizational systems, the underlying principles and employee experiences of these practices are not well understood (Benschopet al., 2015; Dennissenet al., 2020). Therefore, this paper borrows from the leader-member exchange theory to establish the fact that diversity management practices alone cannot sufficiently determine the inclusivity of employees in multigenerational organizations in the absence of other factors like psychological safety and sense of belonging, which are key vignettes of inclusivity. The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, as propounded by Dansereauet al. (1975), postulates that leaders exhibit differential treatment while interacting with different subordinates, given that they generally nurture unique relationships with each of the subordinates over time (Martinet al., 2018). As such, appreciating underlying incongruencies among multi generations that emerge due to their varying cohort values and ethics pauses a fundamental prediction in anticipating that the quality of the leader-member relationship culminates into the theory’s classifications of in-groups and out-groups, which is critical in either promoting or eliminating the inclusion of employees in critical work processes.

The increasing interest in diversity management practices can be attributed to changes in the environment and society, such as new affirmative laws, changing labor demographics, and globalization, which have influenced companies to prioritize competitive advantages in a more interconnected market (D’Nettoet al., 2014). A myriad of studies sustain that diversity management practices should transcend the Equal Employment Opportunity Acts and Affirmative Actions and rather advocate for the formulation of diversity management policies that promote a heterogeneous workforce in varying aspects, especially generational cohorts. This subsequently bears a positive effect on organizational performance because well diversified employees usher in the organization high levels of innovation. As such, appraisal, promotion and compensation policies that attract and retain employees of different generations should be developed in support of the multigenerational workforce concept in the workplace (Jones, 2017).

Remarkably, as much as extant literature upholds the critical role of diversity management practices in work organizations, a dearth of studies have explored the views of employees regarding the up-side and down-side of workplace diversity and the appropriate strategies that can be employed by organizations in promoting diversity, especially within the human resource confines (Munjuri & Maina, 2013). And as such, undesired outcomes that have grossly undermined diversity management initiatives have been ushered in work organizations today and negatively affected performance. This has created a dire need to empirically develop good and sustainable diversity management practices in organizations for the phenomenon to remain visible and yield positive outcomes in contemporary times.

Contemporary organizations that promote multigenerational inclusivity propel a high sense of unity among their employees while increasing the latitude of belongingness among work teams. Interestingly, this shared interest can subsequently increase mutual trust and communication while eliminating social boundaries that often discriminate employees and inhibit organizational performance outcomes. Intriguingly, multiple studies suggest that there is a positive correlation between diversity management and inclusivity as regards multigenerational workforces, even though it has been largely espoused in the private sector, thus leaving an empirical void in the public domain or organizations.

It is worth noting that without a climate of inclusivity at the workplace today, the existent social boundaries between generational cohorts could become more heightened, leading to mutual distrust, inter-group tensions, disengagements, imaginary or actual conflicts, miscommunication, and reduced performance outcomes (Mor Baraket al., 2016). Accordingly, the literature on inclusivity seeks to identify methods by which organizations can cultivate workforce-inclusive workspaces and implement strategies that ensure diversity management is not a hindrance but rather a source of advantage. To this end, diverse management practices have continued to evolve in a bid to improve organizational performance, although the intricacies of setting an inclusive work climate remain strong in highly emerging multigenerational organizations. This has continued to breed psychological insecurity among individual workers, which has curtailed not only organizational performance but undermined good work ethics among varying generational cohorts. Premising on the aforementioned scholarly reviews, a plethora of studies linking diversity management and inclusivity in contemporary organizations continues to unearth significant empirical gaps in setting an organizational stage that could serve as an enabler for inclusivity in today’s organizations (McCandlesset al., 2022).

Therefore, the contention of this paper is to decipher the dichotomy paradox presented in advancing diversity management practices and inclusivity as a conduit for the smooth integration of multigenerational workforces in multigenerational organizations. We argue that by embracing inclusivity, organizations can mitigate or even prevent intergroup conflicts, tension, and distrust that often arise from diversity management while simultaneously reaping the benefits of an age-diverse workforce, including a wealth of innovative ideas and creative solutions. By emphasizing inclusivity as a means of achieving more positive outcomes, both at the individual and the broader organizational level, the authors present a conceptual model that investigates the effects of diversity management practices and inclusivity while refuting the notion of diversity management-inclusivity paradox. According to the conceptual model presented in Fig. 1, a climate of inclusivity functions as a mediating variable between diversity management practices and the (organizational) constructive and deleterious outcomes.

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

Research Methodology

This paper was based on a meta-analytic review of literature focusing on key topical areas of diversity management practices and inclusivity in multigenerational organizations. To efficiently investigate the correlation between diversity management and organizational outcomes, we developed specific inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. In order to be considered for inclusion, each study needed to fulfill all of the subsequent requirements:

• Incorporated, at the very least, one parameter of a diversity management practice (such as diversity management training, recruitment for diversity, linking diversity to strategy, and work-life flexibilities) as an independent variable.
• Included at least two inclusivity constructs (psychological safety and sense of belonging) as the mediating variable.
• Included at least one of the performance outcomes (constructive or deleterious) as the dependent variable.
• Meta reviewed only empirical studies to support the researchers in extracting average effect sizes.
• Empirical articles reviewed were published between 2013 and 2023 to cater for literature review relevance.
• Reported the necessary statistical information for a meta-synthesis, including bivariate correlations, t-statistics, correlation coefficients, and standard deviations.
• Reported sample sizes that were used in the various statistical analyses.

The research studies in this meta-analysis were selected from peer-reviewed journals to ensure quality assurance. Additionally, we meta-reviewed all journals that have been published with both statistically significant and non-significant results in order to avoid potential biases. Excluded from the analysis were studies and theses that were not published in English, as accessing and retrieving these sources would necessitate too much time. The studies were identified using a conjunction of keywords, as presented in Table I, that primarily focused on the relationship between diversity management practices, inclusivity, and performance direction.

Table I. Research Terms

No	Terms
1	Recruitment for diversity (Performance enhancement, Organizations)
2	Linking diversity to strategy (Mutual trust, Firms)
3	Diversity management training (Team cohesion, Institutions)
4	Diversity management (Creativity, Establishments)
5	Diversity training (Commitment, Companies)
6	Strategic diversity (Inclusion, Entities)
7	Diversified recruitment (Psychological Safety, Corporations)
8	Generational diversity (Sense of belonging, Agencies)
9	Age Cohort structure (Engagement, Undertakings)
10	Diversity policies (Turnover/turnover intentions, Businesses)
11	Diversity programs (Team tension, Groups)
12	Inclusivity (Absenteeism, Ventures)
13	Multigenerational workforces (Emotional burnout, Enterprises)
14	Diversity (Detachment, Operations)

Systematic Search Process

This research aimed at recognizing relevant empirical studies by employing the specified criteria, focusing on publications between 2013 and 2023 in academic peer reviewed journals. To achieve this, two search methods were utilized: a computer-based search and a manual examination of key journals.

Computerized Search

We performed computerized searches in five key academic electronic databases, mainly in Emerald Insight, Ebscohost, Jstor, Taylor and Francis, and Google Scholar. We were able to identify articles in the fields of human resource management, demography studies, organizational psychology, industrial psychology, and general management. Emerald Insight grants uninterrupted access to a diverse range of top-notch, influential publications, including journals, books, case studies, and expert briefings. It is continually expanding its selection of open-access content to a worldwide audience. Jstor, which stands for journal storage, has developed various databases in many academic fields, while Taylor and Francis are a prominent publisher of cutting-edge, innovative, and practical academic research and knowledge on a global scale. Ebscohost is an intuitive online research platform that hosts quality databases and search features often used by thousands of institutions and millions of users worldwide. Google Scholar, a search engine designed to explore scholarly literature across diverse fields of study, had articles that fulfilled our specified inclusion criteria meta-analyzed.

we adopted a two-step approach for identifying studies to include in the meta-analysis. Initially, we executed a computerized search of article abstracts by incorporating a set of key search terms (Table II). This search process yielded 65 potential articles. Subsequently, we thoroughly reviewed the complete text of each of these articles to verify that they fulfilled the inclusion criteria. After evaluating the 65 articles, we narrowed down the selection to 20 studies that met the requirements for this meta-analysis.

Table II. Coding of Empirical Studies with Constructive and Deleterious Net Results, Classified According to Their Outcomes and Code Number

Constructive outcomes
• Affective commitment (1)
• Organizational identity (1)
• Creativity (1)
• Team inclusion (1)
• Job satisfaction (1)
• Employee engagement (1)
• Age climate practices (1)
• Psychological safety (1)
Deleterious outcomes
• Team disunity (2)
• Social identity threats (2)
• Employee skills (2)
• Sub-optimal utilization of employee expertise (2)
• Emotional burnout (2)
• Abusive supervision (2)

The search terms employed during the literature review are presented in Table I according to diversity management practices, their performance outcomes, and the context.

Manual Search in Key Journals

In addition to conducting a computerized search, a manual search was conducted for studies from a variety of sectors: public sector, banking sector, health sector, small and medium enterprises, and among recent graduates. The journals reviewed were European Management Review, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Personnel Psychology, Chinese Management Studies, Human Resource Management Review, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Public Personnel Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management Studies.

Study Sample

Following our structured literature protocol, we were able to establish 20 deserving scholarly reviews published in refereed periodicals. The combined sample featured 1742 workers in public service, 5304 health workers, 1839 workers in telecommunication, 240 workers in the banking sector, 93 workers in SMEs, 115 workers in research and development teams,376 workers in production,180 workers in textile and 261 workers were in technology while 695 participants were students. Of the 20 empirical observations that satisfied the search inclusion metrics,165 participants were racially diverse, making an overall total of 11,010 as sample size meta-analyzed in this study.

Coding of Studies

Four members of the research team provided coding of all the empirical observations premising on the following study categorizations (i.e., 1 = public servant; 2 = health workers; 3 = banking sector worker; 4 = SME; 5 = research and development worker; 6 = production workers; 7 = student; 8 = Telecommunication workers; 9 = Textile workers; 10 = non-profit workers). Studies were categorized according to whether they reported correlation coefficients or regression coefficients (standardized or unstandardized) and sample size. The observations were also coded for the classification of diversity management practices, recruitment for diversity, diversity management training, and work-life flexibilities; whether inclusivity (psychological safety and sense of belonging) influenced performance outcomes; and the type of outcome variable (i.e., constructive vs. deleterious outcome) (Table II). Furthermore, all net results were classified as either constructive or deleterious. To guarantee that all diversity management constructs were coded in the same proclivity, a coding strategy based on theoretical significance was adopted in the current study. Premising on the literature review, we operationalized diversity management as; linking diversity to strategy, recruitment for diversity, diversity management training, and work-life flexibility (Köllen, 2021; Morfaki & Morfaki, 2022), and this conceptualization is premised on the constructs’ inclusion of contemporary organizational level perspective although linking diversity to strategy construct was later on dropped during meta-analysis because it was non-existent in the literature reviewed.

Findings

Our net results are anchored on 20 empirical investigations that fit into the inclusion metrics with 40 spooled correlation coefficients, 40 standardized regression coefficients (betas), and 10 odds ratio measures assessing the correlations between diversity management practices and organizational outcomes. Tables III and IV set forth the academic source, the sector where samples were drawn, and their respective effect sizes. Premising on our theoretical underpinning, effect sizes were divided into three classifications of precursors and two forms of organizational outcomes. Remarkably, the authors came across a myriad of scholarly works on diversity management practices and their direct effects on organizational outcomes. Thus, we successfully evaluated the immediate connection of diverse management practices with their consequences on the organization. However, we came across limited studies examining the mediating effect of inclusivity on performance outcomes, confirming the significant empirical lacuna that exists in setting an inclusive work environment. We were able to test the mediating effect with respect to positive and deleterious outcomes; only one observation reported a correlation between diversity recruitment and a deleterious effect, and only one study revealed a correlation between diversity management and a deleterious effect. None of the observations indicated a correlation between work-life flexibilities and deleterious effects. Therefore, the meta-synthesis was not conducted for these relationships. Information on the most common emerging outcomes, either constructive or deleterious, with their individual effect sizes from all pooled studies, is presented in Table IV.

Table III. Effect Sizes of Individual Studies by Classification of Analysis: Constructive Effects Classified According to Study Number, Source, Sector, Variable, Number of Participants and Correlation Coefficients

Study number	Source	Sector	Variable	N	r
4	Sabharwal (2014)	Public sector	Diversity Mgt	198	0.52
4	Sabharwal (2014)	Public sector	Inclusivity	198	0.72
3	Ashikali et al . (2021)	Public sector	Inclusivity	664	0.8
5	Boehm et al . (2014)	SMEs	Diversity Mgt	93	−0.2
1	Buse et al . (2016)	Non-profit	Diversity Mgt	1456	0.36
2	Maurya et al . (2015)	Banking sector	Diversity Mgt	240	0.62
6	Singh et al . (2013)	Racially diverse	Inclusivity	165	0.27
7	Koopmann et al . (2016)	Research and dev	Inclusivity	115	0.02
8	Singh et al . (2018)	Production	Diversity Mgt	165	0.02
9	Avery et al . (2013)	MBA graduates	Diversity Mgt	194	0.14
11	Creon and schermuly (2019)	Public service	Diversity Mgt	364	−1
10	Gerpott et al . (2021)	Automobile manufacturing	Diversity Mgt	211	−0.33
12	Golubovich and Ryan (2022)	Undergraduates	Diversity Mgt	501	0.13
14	Chow (2018)	Health care industry	Inclusivity	216	0.62
13	Leroy et al . (2022)	Health care sector	Inclusivity	491	0.84
15	Nnambooze and Parumasur (2016)	Public sector	Diversity Mgt	93	0.03
16	Liu et al . (2016)	Public sector	Inclusivity	423	0.5
17	Javed et al . (2019)	Textile industry	Inclusivity	180	0.9
18	Hapsari et al . (2019)	Telecommunication	Inclusivity	1839	0.27
19	Downey et al . (2015)	Health sector	Inclusivity	4597	0.86
20	Becker et al . (2022)	Technology	Diversity Mgt	261	0.5

Table IV. Studies with Constructive or Deleterious Outcomes and Corresponding Effect Sizes

Outcome type	Outcome	Coding number	Effect size
Constructive	Affective commitment	1	0.64
outcomes	Organizational identity	1	0.04
	Creativity	1	0.45
	Job satisfaction	1	0.39
	Team inclusion	1	0.84
	Psychological safety	1	1.4
	Employee engagement	1	0.74
	Age climate practices	1	0.04
Deleterious	Team disunity	2	0.04
outcomes	Social identity threats	2	0.11
	Emotional burn-out	2	0.15
	Sub-optimal utilization of employee’s skills	2	0.04
	Abusive supervision	2	0.25
Total effect sizes	Constructive outcomes	1	4.58
	Deleterious outcomes	2	0.59

The outcomes of this meta-analysis varied and indicated that certain aspects of the operationalization parameters of diversity management practices in this study were negatively correlated to organizational outcomes; some were positive, and others generated insignificant results.

There were no apparent correlations between work-life flexibilities and deleterious effects or between linking diversity to strategy with positive or negative performance effects. The inclusion criteria pooled minimal studies for examining the relationship between linking diversity to strategy with constructive or deleterious outcomes.

Recruitment for Diversity and Positive Outcomes

Averyet al. (2013) conducted a study on how perceptions of diversity at work impact job pursuit intentions. In the study, Hypothesis 2 suggested that feeling validated at work would explain how organizational value diversity (OVD) and other group orientation (OGO) affect job pursuit intentions (JPI). The results showed that when OGO was higher, the relationships between OVD–identity affirmation (B = 0.26, p < 0.01) and identity affirmation–JPI (B = 0.65, p < 0.01) were significant, resulting in a meaningful indirect effect (B = 0.17, p < 0.01). When OGO was lower, this indirect pathway was not significant. The difference between the two indirect effects was statistically significant (effect = 0.16, p < 0.01). This supported Hypothesis 2, suggesting that people are more likely to seek jobs in organizations that support diversity management because they believe these organizations will provide opportunities that validate their identities. These results align with social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), which suggests that people are more attracted to organizations that affirm their positive self-image.

Recruitment for Diversity and Deleterious Outcomes

In a study conducted by Golubovich and Ryan (2022) concerning the implications of diversity cues in recruitment and assessment materials. The descriptives and correlations between diversity cues in recruitment and assessment are clearly indicated in Table III. Time spent reading about the company (before the manipulations) was associated with attraction to the organization (r = 0.13), conflict item 1 score (r = 0.22), helping item 1 score (r = 0.19), motivation (r = 0.15), effort (r = 0.14), and attentiveness on the situational judgment test (SJT items) (r = 0.48). Thus, time spent reading about the company appeared to index respondents’ predisposition toward attentiveness and was controlled for in subsequent analyses where the diversity manipulations were used as predictors. For attraction to the organization, diversity cues individually had no significant effects on attraction.

Diversity Management Training and Positive Outcomes

In another study conducted by Chow (2018), the findings in Table III show that the indirect effect of cognitive diversity on performance is mediated by inclusion (b = 0.296, SE = 0.409, 95% bias-corrected CI [0.13 to 0.58]), which supports H3b. However, the indirect effect of cognitive diversity on performance through team learning (H2b) was not supported (b = 0.206, SE = 0.151, 95% bias-corrected CI [0.12 to 0.5]). The confidence interval for the indirect effect includes zero, indicating that the mediating role of team learning on the cognitive diversity-performance link was rejected. In conclusion, team cognitive diversity does not directly influence creativity or performance, but it does so indirectly through inclusion and team learning, respectively. By exposing individuals to diverse ideas and ways of thinking, cognitive team diversity can foster creative performance by encouraging new approaches to problem-solving.

Diversity Management Training and Deleterious Outcomes

A similar study done by Creon and Schermuly (2019) on training group diversity and training shows that hypothesis 1, which claimed there was a negative relationship between diversity and psychological safety, was not supported for objective diversity. Looking at previous studies, this finding adds to the number of studies that found no relationship between diversity fault lines and psychological safety (Gerlach & Gockel, 2022). One explanation could be that the diversity attributes that influence psychological safety were found volatile and situationally specific for this particular study. In a related study by Gerpottet al. (2021), the study variables’ correlations and descriptive statistics are presented. There was a moderate correlation (r = 0.25, p < 0.01) between perceived and objective age diversity. A negative correlation was found between perceived age variety and psychological safety (r = −0.33, p < 0.01), knowledge sharing (r = −0.37, p < 0.01), and learning outcomes (r = −0.42, p < 0.01). There was no discernible correlation between these outcome variables and the objective age diversity. In low-interactive training environments, such as individual technology-based learning programmes or traditional one-way classroom instruction, the makeup of the training group may not have mattered. Instead, interactive training designs are increasingly being used to replace passive human resource development interventions. The body of research on group dynamics claims that heterogeneity in teams can have detrimental effects and impair group dynamics by decreasing cohesiveness and raising miscommunication and conflict.

Work-Life Flexibilities and Positive Outcomes

In a study done by Mauryaet al. (2015), findings on work-life balance policies and their impact on employee job satisfaction and performance are as follows. According to Pearson’s correlation coefficients, there is a strong and positive correlation between flexibility policies and employee job satisfaction (r = 0.561). Meanwhile, leave provisions showed a low positive correlation with job satisfaction (r = 0.194), and job design had a weak positive correlation with employee job satisfaction. It is important to note that both male and female employees strongly prefer working for organizations that prioritize work-life balance. Furthermore, there is a particularly strong and positive correlation between welfare policies and employee job satisfaction for men (r = 0.659).

Millennials, who make up to 40% of professionals in today’s work organizations (Luttrell and McLean, 2013) are motivated to meet performance targets in work environments that foster work-life balance arrangements, while employees from different generations differ significantly in their perceptions of a flexible and efficient work environment at a 5% level of significance. As such, it’s imperative that management designs flexible work arrangements that suit the millennial category, such as flexi-time, telecommuting, job sharing hours, part-time employment, and working from home options, but at the same time remain cognizant of the interests of the other generational cohorts.

Work-Life Flexibilities and Negative Outcomes

Men benefit from this more than women, as observations indicated that men regularly report feeling more content when they excel in their jobs, even at the expense of neglecting their family responsibilities (Mauryaet al., 2015). Studies reveal that flexible work hours have been found to decrease bidirectional inter-role conflict. However, this decrease may be more noticeable in the context of family-work conflict rather than work-family conflict. This implies that more research is required to harmonize work-family conflicts.

Mediation Analysis

After conducting a meta-analysis, sense of belonging and psychological safety was found to be generalizable across the studies. Between 0.02% (team inclusion results) and 90% (innovative work behaviours), inclusivity explained the variation in percentage terms. If the anticipated variable accounts for less than 75% of the variance, Hollandet al. (2004) have proposed that there might be a mediator. However, studies that adjusted for three or more categories of mediators were suggested to use this 75% guideline. The Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation (MCMAM, MacKinnonet al., 2012) was performed to test whether the mediated effect occurred by chance. The MCMAM estimates, tested for the mediator separately (i.e., a1 * b1), fell within the 95% confidence interval, suggesting the mediated effects for the mediator did not occur by chance across all the 20 studies. The study conducted by Liuet al. (2016) investigates the connection between abusive supervision and employee creativity, assessing the intervening role of psychological safety and organizational identification. The means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables are clearly depicted. It is crucial to exercise caution while interpreting the simple correlations due to the potential nesting effect in this study, (Chen & Bliese, 2002). The results indicate that employee creativity is negatively correlated with abusive supervision (r = −0.19, p = 0.01) and positively correlated with psychological safety (r = 0.22, p = 0.01) and organizational identification (r = 0.32, p = 0.01). Psychological safety is negatively correlated with abusive supervision (r = −0.35, p = 0.01) and positively correlated with organizational identification (r = 0.50, p = 0.01). Moreover, organizational identification is negatively correlated with abusive supervision (r = −0.25, p = 0.0.1) An analytic procedure (e.g., structural equation modelling) that reveals the true magnitude of the relationships needs to be further explored.

Three potential moderators were identified while analyzing the relationship between diversity management practices and constructive or deleterious effects: recruitment for diversity, diversity management training, and work-life flexibility. After running structural equation modelling, abusive supervision had a negative relationship with organisational identity (H2; r = −0.119, p = 0.01) and psychological safety (H1; r = −0.435, p = 0.01), while psychological safety had a positive relationship with organisational identification (r = 0.384, p = 0.01). The findings show that: (1) employees’ perception of psychological safety is negatively impacted by abusive supervision; (2) employees’ organisational identification is partially negatively impacted by abusive supervision through psychological safety; (3) organisational identification fosters creativity; and (4) psychological safety fosters creativity through organisational identification.

In another similar study done by Javedet al. (2019) on the impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety, results demonstrate that inclusive leadership is positively related with innovative work behavior (β = 0.30, p < 0.001), innovative work behavior is positively related with psychological safety (β = 0.40, p < 0.001). When innovative work behavior was regressed on both inclusive leadership and psychological safety, the previous regression coefficient between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior reduced in size (β = 0.22, p < 0.001). This shows that psychological safety partially mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior (confidence interval values between 0.10 and 0.26). Hence, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported.

A study by Hapsariet al. (2019) found that the influence of generational diversity management and leader-member exchange behavior has a positive effect on the quality of leader-member exchange and on employee engagement. Additionally, it was discovered that innovative work behaviour was positively impacted by employee engagement. The management of diversity had a direct and significant influence on employee engagement (r = 0.382; p < 0.001), and positive leader-member relationships also had a significant effect on employee engagement (r = 0.270; p < 0.001). As a result, both hypotheses (H1 and H2) were supported. The R-squared values for employee engagement and innovative behavior were 0.33 and 0.20, respectively. Thirty-three percent of the variation in employee engagement was explained by leader-member exchanges and generational diversity management, and 20% of the variation in innovative work behavior was explained by employee engagement. Upon comparison to the recommendations by Hairet al. (2014), it is evident that the figures are notably lower. This study rigorously evaluates the social phenomena by gathering perceptual responses from telecommunication workers. It is essential to consider that unanalyzed factors could have significantly impacted the results.

A related study conducted by Downeyet al. (2015) examined the role of diversity practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. The study examined the relationship between diversity practices and trust climate at different levels of inclusion. Results of the moderated mediation model indicate that the indirect effect of diversity practices on engagement is statistically significant only at high levels of inclusion (one standard deviation above the mean = 0.03, SE = 0.004, p < 0.001). The difference between this effect at high and low levels (one standard deviation below the mean) of inclusion was also statistically significant (Δb = 0.02, SE = 0.003, p < 0.001), thus supporting Hypothesis 3. In this context, the mediating role of trust climate in the relationship between diversity practices and engagement varied significantly across different levels of inclusion.

In another study conducted by Leroyet al. (2022) on the role of a leader in harvesting benefits of diversity and cultivating value in diversity beliefs using team inclusion, 38 teams were included in the final sample (i.e., a total of 174 [97%] followers and 38 [100%] leaders). Because our sample size was rather low (N = 174), our study was underpowered to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis. Given assumptions of interrelations, we used a method for oblique (non-orthogonal) rotation in SPSS 22 (Direct Oblimin Rotation Method with Kaiser Normalization). All items were loaded on their respective sub-dimensions, and the resulting two-factor model explained 61% of the variance. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) indicated significance between-group variance for both variables: F (37,173) = 2.11, p < 0.01, and F (37,173) = 2.42, p < 0.01, respectively. This implies that a team-level inclusion akin to team psychological safety promotes a healthy work environment where the sense of belongingness is paramount among teams.

Calculating Mean and Standard Deviation in the True Groups of Studies

Inclusivity Studies

Standard Deviation (s) is 0.30371770518764, Count (N) is 10, Sum ($\mathrm{\Sigma }$x) is 5.8, Mean ($\overline{x}$) 0.58, Variance (s²) is 0.092244444444444.

The equation represents the sample standard deviation: where

$$\begin{array}{r}s=N-11i=1\sum N{(xi-\overline{x})}^2\end{array}$$

s – the sample standard deviation

N – the number of observations

xi – represents each individual observation

$\overline{x}$ – the sample mean Start with the variance formula: Substitute the values: Then, calculate the standard deviation: Finally, express the result:

$$\begin{array}{rl}{s}^2& =1N-1\sum (xi-\overline{x})2s^2=\frac{1}{N-1}\sum (x_i-\overline{x}{)}^2{s}^2\\ & =N-11\sum (xi-\overline{x}{)}^2\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{rl}& =(0.72-0.58{)}^2+\dots +(0.86-0.58{)}^{2}10-1\\ & =\frac{(0.72-0.58{)}^2+\dots +(0.86-0.58{)}^2}{10-1}\\ & =10-1(0.72-0.58{)}^2+\dots +(0.86-0.58{)}^2\\ & =0.83029=\frac{0.8302}{9}=90.8302\\ & =0.092244444444444=0.092244444444444\\ & =0.092244444444444\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{rl}s& =0.092244444444444s=\sqrt{0.092244444444444}\\ & s=0.092244444444444\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{rl}& Standarddeviation=0.30371770518764\\ & Standarddeviation=0.30371770518764\\ & Standarddeviation=0.30371770518764\end{array}$$

These steps represent the full calculation of the sample variance and standard deviation.

Diversity Management Studies

Standard Deviation (s) is 0.36442868321733, Count (N) is 12, Sum ($\mathrm{\Sigma }$x) is 2.789, Mean ($\overline{x}$) 0.23241666666667, Variance (s²) is 0.13280826515152.

$$\begin{array}{r}N-11i=1\sum N(xi-\overline{x}{)}^2\end{array}$$

1. Variance Calculation:
2. Standard Deviation Calculation:

Calculating Effect Size Using Cohen’s d Formula

Formula for Cohen’s d: Formula for pooled standard deviation:

$$\begin{array}{rl}d& =M_1-M_{2}S{D}_{pooledd}=\frac{M_1-M_2}{S{D}_{\text{pooled}}}d\\ & =S{D}_{pooled}{M}_1-M_2\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{rl}S{D}_{pooled}& =S{D}_{12}+S{D}_{222}S{D}_{\text{pooled}}\\ & =\sqrt{\frac{S{D}_{21}+S{D}_{22}}{2}}S{D}_{pooled}\\ & =2S{D}_{12}+S{D}_{22}\end{array}$$

where

M₁ – mean of group 1

M₂ – mean of group 2

SD₁ – standard deviation of group 1

SD₂ – standard deviation of group 2

SD_pooled – pooled standard deviation

$D-0.58-0.232/\sqrt{{0.364}^2}+{0.304}^2/2$

d – 0.348/0.513

d – 0.7

Effect size is 0.7

Discussion

As anticipated, the findings presented a mixed perspective on the correlation between diversity management practices and constructive or deleterious organizational effects. The study reveals that in the public sector, there is insufficiency in evaluating the influence of diversity management policies on organizational effects. The current study conducted a meta-synthesis on the relationship between diversity management practices and performance outcomes being mediated by the inclusivity of multi generations. We calculated the statistical heterogeneity of this study using the Kendall Tau method, and a heterogeneity index of 2% was obtained, indicating very low heterogeneity in the study articles pooled while revealing high statistical homogeneity. Premising on these statistics, the authors were at a vantage point in making more reliable interpretations and valid conclusions. We used a theory-based conceptual model to explore how diversity management practices relate to positive and negative outcomes. We interrogated the mediating correlation between inclusivity and performance outcomes at both individual and organizational levels. We observed that while many scholars acknowledge the significance of inclusivity, none of the studies conducted in the public sector have experimentally examined its effects on performance beyond the diversity management confines. Notably, to achieve optimal organizational performance, it is essential to combine diversity management with support from leaders and empower employees to make meaningful work-related decisions. We argue that although recognizing differences and implementing employee-friendly policies are important, they do not necessarily lead to an inclusive and empowering workplace for all groups. Diversity management and inclusivity are closely related, and both are necessary to create a strong and productive workforce. This study’s findings suggest that relying solely on policies and structural changes is not enough to create a productive workforce. Leaders must foster an inclusive environment that empowers individuals to reach their full potential. Therefore, inclusive management seems to offer more potential for workplace harmony and improved productivity compared to diversity management alone.

These findings are in tandem with prior investigations that re-iterate the fact that without a climate of workforce inclusivity, the existent social boundaries between generational cohorts could become more heightened, leading to mutual distrust, inter-group tensions, disengagements, imaginary or actual conflicts, miscommunication, and reduced performance outcomes (Mor Baraket al., 2016).

Our results are also in tandem with numerous findings relating to diversity management practices. These studies reiterate the huge void in understanding which diversity management practices are most impactful and in what types of entities they are most efficacious, notwithstanding the increasing need for a diversity management climate in multigenerational organizations (Benschopet al., 2015). However, based on this meta-analysis, positive associations between independent and dependent variables ranging from low to average statistical significance were registered while in two studies, a negative relationship existed between the independent and dependent variables. This variance could have been due to contextual, small sample size or application mechanism issues. It’s important to note that all studies that meta-analyzed inclusivity as a mediator and diversity management practices as an independent variable registered low to very high correlation coefficients with no negative relationships present. This resonates well with previous studies that emphasize that the approach with which leaders foster an inclusive environment can be double-edged, having the potential of either harnessing or impairing constructive organizational and personal outcomes.

Managerial Implications

Our meta-analysis results have numerous statistical inferences for contemporary leaders and managers, we recommend that managers or leaders need to inculcate an inclusive work environment that permeates psychological safety and sense of belongingness among employees so as to promote a work climate that amplifies employees’ voices and innovative opinions. Therefore, it is practically critical for managers to foster high latitudes of psychological safety and a sense of belonging among employees regardless of whether in-groups and out-groups exist in their workspaces. This will lead to sustainable consolidation of constructive outcomes at both the organizational and personal levels.

Limitations

The paucity of studies that fit into the inclusion criteria for the operationalized parameters of the diversity management category restrained us from testing for meta-regression. Meta-regression findings would have helped us shed light on the comparative relevance of linking diversity to strategy, recruitment for diversity, diversity management training and work-life flexibilities with regard to constructive or deleterious organizational effects.

Secondly, most of the inclusivity studies we meta-analyzed were highly constrained in the methods of inducing an inclusive work environment.

Implications for Future Research and Conclusion

Futuristic observations should interrogate empirically the place of diversity management in promoting an inclusive climate as a mediator or moderator between diversity management practices and organizational effects. Additionally, futuristic investigations will benefit the organizational diversity discipline by explicating the dynamics and strategies that foster an inclusive climate while ensuring voice participation and insights of all individuals in the work settings. Qualitative results will offer a robust description of these dynamics, given that inclusivity is more of a latent variable.

In Conclusion, we recommend future studies to empirically test the operationalized parameters for diversity management in large sample sized contexts to be able to conduct regression analyses. This will increase the predictability power and effect sizes of diversity management over performance outcomes. We also recommend cross-examinations with the empirical lens so as to guide generational leaders on how to infuse amenable inclusivity strategies in the workplace today.