Search results

Much research has focused on the negative aspects of disclosing sexual orientation and/or gender identity in the workplace but less has explicitly examined the positive aspects. This lack of research is problematic as this can oversimplify the work lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ) people. The current study examines positive intrapersonal, interpersonal and work opportunity experiences associated with coming out in the workplace as LGBTQ.

The current study surveyed 135 working adults who identified as LGBTQ and used a mixed qualitative and quantitative design to examine the relationship between disclosure and various positive workplace experiences.

Results suggest that sexual orientation disclosure at work was related to participants perceiving multiple positive interpersonal as well as work opportunity experiences. Furthermore, results suggest gender identity disclosure was similar to, but not the same as, sexual orientation disclosure in terms of perception of positive experiences.

Previous research on disclosure at work has taken a somewhat narrow and typically quantitative approach. The current study provides more nuance to the phenomenon by broadly examining multiple positive experiences associated with disclosure and studying them qualitatively in order to best understand participants' experiences in their own voices.

Organizational research on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is at times siloed; the experience of one minoritized or underrepresented group is treated as completely separate and different from the experience of another group and thus research separately. For example, there are terms that are studied only in the context of one group, and a different term is used to study a very similar (or identical) concept among a different group. Indeed, there are many unique experiences that specific minority groups encounter at work. Because of this end, minority groups should not be fully categorized together, and their individual should not be erased. However, there are shared experiences that many or all minorities experience at work, whether they are a gender minority, racial minority, or a member of any other minoritized group. Recognizing these shared experiences can help scholars develop a deeper understanding of what it's like to be minoritized or underrepresented at work, and therefore help to better serve these communities. To this end, our chapter highlights three such shared but unique minority experiences: three experiences that are common across all minority groups but operationalize slightly differently in different populations. The first experience we discuss is discrimination, as all minorities typically experience some form of negative differential treatment at work. The second experience we discuss is identity management, as many minorities need to actively think about how they present their minority identity to others (regardless of if their identity is “concealable” or not). Finally, we discuss strength through adversity, as many minorities argue that their minority identity is a source of strength and an area that benefits them at work. We conclude the chapter with a call toward intraminority solidarity, suggesting that recognizing shared experiences and working together can help build better workplaces for all minority employees.

This chapter reviews previous research on allyship: non-minority individuals who choose to support minorities while working to end discrimination and prejudice. In particular, the focus of this chapter is on how allyship applies to the workplace. We argue that allyship can be a diversity management tool to help reduce workplace discrimination.

To explore this topic, we conducted a literature review on allyship in the workplace and synthesized previous research together. We examined research from both organizational and non-organizational settings.

Our review of previous literature is divided into three sections. First, we discuss what all entails allyship, including knowledge, communication, and, in particular, action. Next, we discuss the many outcomes previous research suggests comes from allyship (including benefits to other individuals, benefits to the overall culture, and benefits to the ally him or herself). Finally, we conclude with a discussion of who is likely to become an ally as well as the journey a person goes through to become a true ally.

This chapter can be useful for practitioners who wish to promote allyship within his or her workplace. Organizations that want to strengthen their diversity and inclusion climate can consider developing ally training programs and promoting ally culture. Additionally, this chapter can be useful for researchers who wish to study the topic. Currently, there is a dearth of research on allyship specifically within the workplace; this chapter can help future researchers identify areas for empirical exploration.

In industrial‐organizational psychology, research and practice has focused on the use of situational judgment tests to predict managerial job performance. Although there is considerable controversy over what these tests actually measure, many have argued that they at least partially measure practical intelligence or “common sense.” Therefore the purpose of this article is to discuss situational judgment tests as assessments of common sense.

Reviewing the relevant industrial‐organizational psychology literature, this article considers the history and development of situational judgment tests as well as how the field has defined situational judgment. It also reviews the empirical and theoretical literature on their effectiveness for assessing managerial decision‐making competence.

Situational judgment tests have been found to be effective predictors of many organizational outcomes in a variety of job settings and positions. In particular, they have been found to incrementally predict future performance on‐the‐job beyond other typical predictors. Situational judgment tests are also relatively easy to administer and score and are often well received by managers and job applicants.

This article suggests situational judgment tests offer an efficient method of assessing common sense that can easily be adapted to many employment settings.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the research presented in this edited volume.

This report is based on 13 chapters, which vary in terms of research approach, design, and method, yet aims to present different types of diversity in organizations.

The chapters shed light on existing practices promulgating the value of diversity, while opening the road toward diverse definitions of diversity. Contributors provide a critical reflection of the current discourse on different types of diversity around the world. Findings indicate that multinational organizations are regularly confronted with the absence of the necessary sensitivity on behalf of their top management team and spokespeople. Empirical studies advocate strategies that could potentially facilitate both organizations and immigrants to overcome a plethora of challenges.

The report summarizes and integrates novel insights on how organizations approach, view, and manage different types of diversity.

Crowdsourcing – a form of collaboration across organizational boundaries – provides access to knowledge beyond an organization’s local knowledge base. Integrating work on organization theory and innovation, the authors first develop a framework that characterizes crowdsourcing into a main sequential process, through which organizations (1) define the task they wish to have completed; (2) broadcast to a pool of potential contributors; (3) attract a crowd of contributors; and (4) select among the inputs they receive. For each of these phases, the authors identify the key decisions organizations make, provide a basic explanation for each decision, discuss the trade-offs organizations face when choosing among decision alternatives, and explore how organizations may resolve these trade-offs. Using this decision-centric approach, the authors continue by showing that there are fundamental interdependencies in the process that makes the coordination of crowdsourcing challenging.

This study aims to present an integrated conceptual model in order to highlight the major aspects of diffusion of innovations in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) context. To this end, a critical review of literature is conducted, accompanied by synthesising the findings of previous studies. The driving force behind this study is stemmed from the fragmentation of literature on innovation diffusion, and paucity of research on diffusion of Global Virtual Engineering Teams (GVETs) as the platform for many technological innovations in relevant literature. Thus, the present study is intended to facilitate filling the gap in GVETs literature. That is, the proposed model will offer a foundation for academia for grounding studies on any innovation including GVETs in the literature on innovation diffusion in the AEC context.

This paper draws upon the qualitative meta-analysis approach encompassing a critical review of the relevant literature. To this end, the review builds upon studies found within 15 prestigious journals in AEC. The domain of this review was confined to areas described as “innovation”, “innovation diffusion” and “innovation adoption”, along with keywords used within a broad review of recently published GVETs literature. The rigour of review is augmented by incorporating 35 authoritative works from other disciplines published in 21 well-known journals in the manufacturing, business and management fields. Moreover, the study deploys the peer-debriefing approach through conducting unstructured interviews with five Australian scholars to verify a model presenting an aggregated summary of previous studies.

The key findings of the study include the following items: synthesising the fragmented studies on innovation diffusion in the AEC context. In doing so, a model capturing the major aspects affecting diffusion of an innovation in AEC projects is presented; providing a foundation to address the drawbacks of previous studies within the sphere of GVETs, based on the developed model.

The developed model was only enhanced using a small sample size of academics, as such not empirically validated.

As possibly, the first literature review of innovation in the AEC context, this paper contributes to the sphere by sensitising the AEC body of knowledge on innovation diffusion as a concise conceptual model, albeit verified through the peer-debriefing approach. This study will also further establish the research field in AEC on GVETs along with other methods reliant on virtual working such as building information modelling (BIM) through providing an expanded foundation for future inquiries and creation of knowledge.