Understanding Inclusion-Exclusion in Social Service Organizations

California State University, San Bernardino California State University, San Bernardino

CSUSB ScholarWorks CSUSB ScholarWorks

Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations O9ce of Graduate Studies

6-2016

Understanding Inclusion-Exclusion in Social Service Organizations Understanding Inclusion-Exclusion in Social Service Organizations

Eva Andrea Rizzo

California State University - San Bernardino

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd

Part of the Organization Development Commons, Public Administration Commons, and the Social

Work Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Rizzo, Eva Andrea, "Understanding Inclusion-Exclusion in Social Service Organizations" (2016).

Electronic

Theses, Projects, and Dissertations

. 352.

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/352

This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the O9ce of Graduate Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks.

It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator

of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].

UNDERSTANDING INCLUSION-EXCLUSION IN SOCIAL

SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

A Project

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University,

San Bernardino

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Social Work

Eva Andrea Rizzo

June 2016

UNDERSTANDING INCLUSION-EXCLUSION IN SOCIAL

SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

A Project

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University,

San Bernardino

Eva Andrea Rizzo

June 2016

Approved by:

Erica Lizano, Faculty Supervisor, Social Work

Janet Chang, M.S.W. Research Coordinator

iii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the present study was to explore the effects inclusion-

exclusion on the job-related attitudes of the organizational workforce. These

attitudes included job satisfaction, organizational commitment, burnout, and

turnover intention. A quantitative survey was conducted using a sample of

employees of a social service organization in San Bernardino County.

Participants include employees from all levels and program areas of the social

service organization. Study data was collected through the use of a self-report

questionnaire. Measures were used to explore commitment to the organization,

diversity perception, job satisfaction, turnover intention and burnout, the

dependent variables. Using SPSS software to analyze data, descriptive statistics,

correlation, and Mann-Whitney U analysis were conducted. More than half of the

survey participants, as presented in Table 1 (see Appendix D), identified as

women (n=35, 85.4%) and five (12.2%) accounted for the participants that

identified as men. Results showed that Inclusion was significantly related to all

job related attitudes except burnout, gender and race. Results were consistent

with the literature in that inclusion is related to positive work-related attitudes, but

inconsistent in regards to its relation with gender and race.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will

never forget how you made them feel.” –Maya Angelou

This is an acknowledgement for three social workers who have had the

greatest impact on my professional development. Dr. Erica Lizano, Dr. Thomas

Davis, and Antonio Castro.

Dr. Lizano you are the first professor that I encountered in this program,

the first professor that exposed me to macro social work, and the first to

acknowledge my potential. I am a completely different person than I was when I

started two years ago and even though the thought of changing was so anxiety

provoking you made the journey a little easier.

Dr. Davis you, sir, have been very important in my professional

development. You turned my world upside down several times with your lectures

and your long list of rules but that is exactly what I loved about your classes.

Because of you I now have the tools I need to pick a red flag out of all the green

ones, reach my true potential, and most importantly claim my hive….

The times I did not believe in myself you both believed in me. You both lit

a fire in me that I never knew was possible so I am making it a point to

acknowledge and recognize you for all that you have done for me.

All of that just to say THANK-YOU. You are the type of social workers I want to

be. I will never forget how you made me feel even if I forget the exact quotes that

inspired me.

I also want to acknowledge Antonio Castro because you were the only

one to see my free-spiritedness as a strength. I am the recipient of awards and

scholarships thanks the many letters of recommendation you wrote for me. You

have been so supportive, I cannot even begin to express how thankful I am for

that. Thank-you.

DEDICATION

Este tesis se lo dedico a mi mama y mi papa porque desde muy pequeña

me han apoyado, cuando se ha tratado de mi educación, nunca me han dicho

que no y les agradezco por eso. Ma, me ensañaste la importancia de ser una

mujer educada e independiente. Dad, me ensañaste el valor de trabajar duro

para tu familia. No te retiraste para yo poder terminar mi maestría, por eso te

dedico mi tesis. Mil gracias por todos los sacrificios, todo el amor, y todo lo que

me han enseñado.

I also dedicate my thesis to my one and only niece Andrea because I try to

be the best I can be to show you the possibilities. You are an intelligent young

lady and you will go far, trust me.

And last, but certainly not least, I dedicate this to you Adrian. You have

been with me through every step of this journey and you have supported me in a

way that one can only wish for. You are an amazing partner and you are my best

friend.

vi 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... iii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... iv  
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... viii  
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION OF INCLUSION-EXCLUSION  
           Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 
Problem Statement ......................................................................... 1 
                      Purpose of the Study ...................................................................... 5 
Significance of the Project for Social Work Practice  …………....... 7 
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 
           Introduction …………………………………………………........................... 9 
Diversity Training ............................................................................ 9 
Effects of Inclusion-Exclusion ………………………………………. 11 
 
Theories Guiding Conceptualization ………………………………. 12 
 
Summary ……………………………………………………………….14 
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS  
           Introduction .............................................................................................. 15 
Study Design ……..……………………………………………………15 
 
Sampling ……………………………………………………………….16 
 
Data Collection and Instruments …………………………………… 16 
 
Procedures …………………………………………………………… 17 
 
Protection of Human Subjects ……………………………………….18 
 
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………….18 
 

vii 
Summary ……………………………………………………………….20 
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS  
           Introduction .............................................................................................. 21 
           Presentation of Findings .......................................................................... 21 
Descriptive Statistics ………………………………………………… 21 
 
Inferential Statistics ………………………………………………….. 24 
 
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 
 
           Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 27  
 
Discussion…………………………………………………………….. 27 
 
Limitations ……………………………………………………………. 29  
 
Recommendations for Social Work Practice,  
Policy, and Research ………………………………………………... 30 
 
Conclusion…………………………………………………………….. 33 
 
APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT .............................................................. 34 
APPENDIX B: DEBRIEFING STATEMENT ………………………………………. 37 
 
APPENDIX C: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS ........................................ 39 
 
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................  46

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographics of Study Samples ........................................................ 22

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Study Scales .................................................. 23

Table 3. Correlation Matrix of Study Variables .................................................. 25

Table 4. Results for Mean Group Differences in Burnout By Leadership Team

Membership ……………………………………………………………….. 26

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION OF INCLUSION-EXCLUSION

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the concept of inclusion-

exclusion in social service organizations and to provide an overview of diversity

management within organizations. Inclusion-exclusion is defined as an

employee’s perception of their ability to impact decision-making, their access to

information and resources, and their level of involvement in work group

processes (Mor Barak, 1998). The perceived level of inclusion in each of the

criteria have been shown to affect job-related attitudes such as commitment to

the organization and job satisfaction (Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001;

Foley, Hany-Yue, & Wong, 2005; Friendman & Holtom, 2002; Mor Barak, 2000b).

This chapter will include the problem statement, purpose of the study, and

significance of the project for social work practice.

Problem Statement

Traditionally, social service organizations have served diverse

populations. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) puts forward

key social work ethical principles that include service, social justice, dignity and

worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and

competence. These ethical principles serve as a frame of reference for ethical

practice but what they fail to address is the importance of human relationships

between colleagues and coworkers. It is important to understand that human

relationships are critical in every context of a person’s life. Inclusion in the

workplace is critical for employees to develop relationships with colleagues

because it creates social support networks, and it also improves work-related

attitudes that may otherwise be negative. Organizational leaders have the power

and authority to foster and develop an inclusive workplace beyond merely

providing a training on diversity. It is in the organization’s favor that employees

are treated equally despite their differences to the mainstream group. It is

equally critical that organizational leaders recognize the importance of diverse

viewpoints within the workplace.

Organizational leaders should be expected to be able to manage diversity

in a manner that is inclusionary of all individuals (Mor Barak, 2000).

Administrative leaders are increasingly challenged by diversity within the

workplace because they are not prepared for it. As ethnic minority populations

increase in the United States, organizational demographics should reflect these

changes. Thus, it is the responsibility of leaders in social service organizations to

not only strive for a diverse workplace, but also create an environment that is

inclusive. Diversity as defined by Grant & Kleiner (1997) includes age, sexual

preferences, and disabilities but it may also include differences such as job

function and management or non-management. On the other hand, Cox (2001)

defines diversity as the “variation of social and cultural identities among people

existing together in a defined employment or market setting” (p. 489). Social and

cultural identities may be anything a person identifies with that has had an impact

on their lives as stated by Cox (2001). This study will use Cox’s (2001) definition

of diversity as a basis for meaning. Diversity in the workplace has increased due

in part to Affirmative Action Programs, Civil rights legislation from the 1960’s,

Pregnancy Discrimination, Age Discrimination, and the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (Findler, Wind, & Mor Barak, 2007; Mor Barak & Cherin,

1998; Mor Barak, 2000). Policies such as the ones mentioned above have

required organizations to hire minority groups but they have not addressed the

informal obstacles for these groups (Vallas, 2003). However, exclusion of these

individuals has been one of the most recognized problems they face as stated by

Mor Barak (2000).

Mor Barak & Cherin (1998) report that, “the heterogeneous workforce is a

reality that is here to stay” (p.48). In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau (2014) projects

that by 2060 non-Hispanic Whites will comprise 69% of the population, people of

Latino descent of all races will comprise 29% of the population (12% increase

from 2015), African-Americans will account for 13% and Asians will account for

7% of the U.S. population. The changes in population demographics will likely be

reflected in the changes in workforce demographics and according to Mor Barak

(2000a), there is an urgency for social work to develop practice paradigms for

more inclusive work environments.

To address perceptions of exclusion, organizations have used diversity

training in the past, but according to Redia and Anderson (2010), it does not work

even though post-training evaluations prove that it was successful. The time it

takes for an employee to revert back to previous attitudes and behaviors is about

a week (Redia & Anderson, 2010). The impact of these trainings would have a

greater influence if the leaders of the organization reinforced the training

concepts, resources, and accountability (Redia & Anderson, 2010). This lack of

reinforcement is an issue across organizations. In fact, many organizations that

do offer diversity training may do it to check it off a list or only teach how to be

politically correct and when budget cuts are needed many times, diversity

trainings are the first to go (Redia & Anderson, 2010). It is safe to say that

diversity training is progress but it simply is not enough.

Public and private sector organizations face the challenge of creating a

work environment that is inclusive of all differences. As mentioned before, the

issue of managing diversity by fostering inclusivity is congruent with social work

principles. This is one of the reasons which makes this line of research important

to the field. It is also critical to understand because perceptions of inclusion have

been shown to affect job satisfaction, commitment to the organization, loyalty to

the organization, and the worker’s mental health. All of these factors have an

effect on effectiveness of services. It stands to reason that social work practice

will benefit from a greater understanding of inclusion- exclusion and diversity

management on a macro and micro level. It is of the researchers hope that this

project will elucidate the meaning of diversity management for administrative

leaders and explore the effects of inclusion-exclusion on the organizational

workforce outcomes (i.e., job related attitudes).

Purpose of the Study

In a qualitative study about inclusion-exclusion, Mor Barak (2015) found

that the most common word used by the interviewees was exclusion. One

particularly notable finding of this study was that the interviewees repeating this

word were women and individuals of different ethnic backgrounds and what they

felt was exclusion from the mainstream culture within their organization.

The “inclusive workplace” is a concept developed by Mor Barak (2000a).

Mor Barak & Cherin (1998) conceptualize inclusion-exclusion as: “The worker’s

perception of their ability to influence decision making, their level of access to

information and resources, and their level of involvement in work group

processes” (p. 53). The factors affecting inclusion that are noted by Mor Barak &

Cherin (1998) are critical and beneficial for an organization’s workforce to

succeed in the agency’s goals. Previous research findings validate inclusion-

exclusion as predictors of work-related attitudes such as organizational

commitment and job satisfaction (Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001;

Foley, Hany-Yue, & Wong, 2005; Friendman & Holtom, 2002; Mor Barak, 2000b).

Although more research is needed to truly understand inclusion, what we do

know is that it is a factor that must be considered by leaders within an

organization because exclusion from circles of influence creates a problem for

the excluded and on a larger scale, the organization itself. Exclusion keeps

employees from reaching their potential of contributing and benefiting from being

involved in the workplace (Mor Barak, 2015). This claim is supported in Vallas’

(2003) study which found that minority groups had a much harder time

developing skill and expertise when they were not part of the dominant group

because they did not have social support or informal allies. In turn, exclusion

from the dominant group became an obstacle for developing skills needed to

meet organizational demands.

Shore, et al. (2011) conceptualize inclusion by including belongingness

and uniqueness. According to Optimal Distinctiveness Theory, employee’s needs

of belongingness and uniqueness have to be met in order to feel included. To

feel included the unique characteristic of an employee must be valued within a

group, more importantly though this uniqueness the person brings to the group

must be allowed and encouraged to remain (Shore, et al., 2011). On the other

hand, without both of these (belongingness and uniqueness) the employee is not

a part of the work group therefore are not treated as an insider.

This research study aimed to measure how inclusion-exclusion affects job

satisfaction, commitment to the organization, and burnout. The operationalization

of Inclusion-exclusion is based on three components: worker’s perception to

influence decision-making, level of access to information and resources, and

their level of involvement in work group processes. The participants of the study

completed a quantitative measure in order to assess their perception of inclusion-

exclusion. The measure was used to identify correlations between inclusion-

exclusion and the job-related attitudes mentioned previously. Participants were

social service organization employees.

Significance of the Project for Social Work Practice

There is limited research on the topic of diversity management in the

workplace, particularly in social service organizations (Berka,

2014). Organizational leaders benefit from understanding inclusion-exclusion by

becoming more aware of the value of diversity in the workplace, how to manage

it, the effects inclusion-exclusion has on the attitudes of the employee and how

these attitudes influence the effectiveness of services. It is human nature to seek

acceptance, therefore it is important to understand the perceptions of inclusion in

the workplace in order to encourage administrators to create better policies for

diversity management instead of using the “one-size-fits-all” approach (Mor

Barak & Cherin, 1998). Effective diversity management attracts highly qualified

personnel, strengthens problem-solving (Cox, 2001), and reduces turnover rates

as well as absenteeism (Cox & Blake, 1991). Less than half of human service

non-profit organizations have a formal strategy for workforce diversity, yet 70% of

employees surveyed believe their employer does not do enough to create an

inclusive workplace (HR solutions, 2013). It stands to reason, that many social

service organization administrators may not see the significance in a workforce

diversity strategy. It may be they do not see the value in having a diversity

strategy or they find that a training on diversity is sufficient but if they fail to see it,

their employees will continue to feel excluded.

This study aims to expand our understanding of inclusion-exclusion in

social service organizations. Specifically, this study explores how the concept of

inclusion-exclusion affects an employee’s job satisfaction, commitment to the

organization, and burnout.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This literature review is an overview of the concept of inclusion-exclusion

in social service organizations. Specifically, this chapter defines diversity training,

explores the research on such trainings, effects of inclusion-exclusion on

employees, and theories guiding conceptualization.

Diversity Training

Diversity trainings such as sexual harassment, valuing differences and

diversity management (offering mentoring, coaching, family/employee friendly

policies, alternative work arrangements) are provided by organizations

(Sabharwal, 2014). These efforts have not helped employees reach their full

potential (Mor Barak, 2000b). In order for employees to contribute to the

organization and reach their full potential, Sabharwal (2014) suggests that

strategies must be developed by the leader of the organization. One of the ways

to allow employees to contribute to the organization is by eliminating systemic

barriers and creating avenues for employees to make a contribution (Sabharwal,

2014). The challenge for organizations in the U.S. is to “assimilate a more

diverse labor force into high-status, high-skilled management roles” (Morrison &

Glinow, 1990, p. 200). By eliminating these barriers and creating avenues,

employees that do not identify with the dominant culture, have the opportunity to

break through the “glass ceiling,” a term that describes the effect of solely

providing diversity trainings and accounts for the discrepancy between dominant

culture employees and non-dominant culture employees in management

positions (Christo-Baker, et al., 2012). Sabharwal’s (2014) stipulates that that

two things need to accompany diversity management in order to create an

inclusive workplace. The first is investment in and value of diversity and

secondly, the empowerment of employees to make decisions. In valuing

diversity, the organizational leader considers several perspectives in the

decision-making process which, in turn, can be empowering to an employee who,

otherwise, might not be included in the process.

Mor Barak (2000a) reports the difference between an exclusive and

inclusive workplace using a value-based model. In brief, an inclusive workplace

is characterized by an organizational culture that is constantly adapting, and

embraces pluralism and factors that are associated with the community (Mor

Barak, 2000a). In exclusive workplaces, paradigm shifts within the organization

are rare and may be focused on nationalistic values and norms (Mor Barak,

2000a). Consequently, a nationalistic focus excludes groups and individuals who

do not identify with the mainstream culture because it does not foster

understanding and a value of differences. On the other hand, and inclusive

workplace uses two-way communication methods. For example, instead of

making the employee aware of expectations during orientation, organizational

leaders are open to employee expectations and concerns (Mor Barak, 2000a).

Therefore, in order for an organization to be inclusive, organizational leaders

must do more than introduce organizational values, they must also adapt and

assimilate to the values of their employees (Mor Barak, 2000a).

Effects of Inclusion-Exclusion

Many studies have gone in detail describing the issues organizations face

and describe what inclusive organizations are characterized by, however, there

has not been much research on how all of these factors affect employees,

particularly in the public sector. Sabharwal (2014) identifies this gap in the

literature by stating that “the lack of consensus on the impact of diversity and

diversity management on performance is one of the reasons why inclusion has

promise as an area of study…” (p. 202). This statement justifies the reason for

conducting the current study. It has been validated by findings in previous

research studies that inclusion is important, the impact of it are explored in this

study amongst employees of a non-profit social service organization.

Sommer, Bae, & Luthans (1996) reported that those who had greater

support felt more committed and DeCotiis and Summers (1987) indicated that

level of commitment was positively related to participative decision making and

access to communication and feedback. Similarly, Lawler’s (1994, 1995) study

indicated that the higher the employee’s perception is of being accepted by the

organization, the greater the degree of satisfaction and higher level of

commitment to the organization. Therefore, it can be theorized that employees

that feel included are more likely to have higher level of commitment to the

organization and it increases productivity. Therefore, based on this research, it

can be theorized that a higher perception of inclusion is related to more positive

job-related attitudes and an increase in productivity as well as effectiveness.

In order to develop a cultural and conceptual understanding of diversity in

the workplace, Cho & Mor Barak (2008) suggest studying it in countries other

than the United States. In fact, Cho & Mor Barak (2008) studied diversity within

the Korean cultural context which is perceived by outsiders as a homogeneous

culture. The study focused on Korean culture and the perceptions of women in

the workplace because they are accustomed to working shorter hours in order to

be full-time caregivers (Cho & Mor Barak, 2008). The same study reported that

prejudices in Korea’s politics as well as educational favoritisms is reflected in the

corporate setting. Korean employees are favored within an organization based

on the school the employee went to. The study further indicated that although

diversity is different from one culture to another, the perception of inclusion-

exclusion is affected by being part of the majority or minority in organizations.

Theories Guiding Conceptualization

Festinger’s (1957) social comparison theory indicates that individuals need

to “evaluate themselves and to assess their standing within groups” (as cited by

Mor Barak, 2000b, p. 52). As reference, individuals use their own group. Social

comparison theory is about individuals self-assessing. Mor Barak (2000b) reports

that behavior and situational analysis are driven by individual interpretation and

the combination between symbols and objects in their environments according to

symbolic interaction theory. According to Collins (1988), this is important for

individuals because evaluating how people see them, allows them to determine

where they stand in the world (as cited by Mor Barak, 2000b). Based on these

two theories we can assume that group inclusion is important within the

workplace because of our “personal evaluations” (Mor Barak, 2000b, p. 53).

Socio-meter model on the other hand deals with self-esteem (Mor Barak,

2000b). According to Leary and Downs (1995), physical and psychological well-

being depends on the need to be accepted and included by others (as cited by

Mor Barak, 2000b). According to Baumeister & Leary (1995), we are

interdependent by nature, dependence on others is a basic need and this is what

motivates individuals to” maintain connections with significant people and social

systems in their lives” (as cited by Mor Barak, 2000b, p. 53). The “socio-meter”

as it is called, serves as an indicator that allows people to monitor inclusion or

exclusion (Leary, Schreindorfer, & Haupt, 1995), therefore when an environment

is exclusionary the individual’s self-esteem is lowered and this affects behavior

(Mor Barak, 2000b). Behaviors that result from a lowered self-esteem may

include efforts to assimilate or by disengaging from the exclusionary system (Mor

Barak, 2000b). Reasons for exclusion of diverse groups include overt or covert

racism, sexism, and ageism are reasons for the exclusion of diverse groups

(Larkey, 1996, as cited by Mor Barak, 2000b). Financial self-interest may be

another reason to exclude individuals from access to power and economic

resources (Lakey, 1996, as cited by Mor Barak, 2000b). All three theories have

shaped past research. The current study makes use of Social Comparison

Theory as the guiding practice.

Summary

This chapter focused on reviewing the literature on diversity trainings,

effects of inclusion-exclusion and theories guiding the conceptualization of this

research study. Previous research findings validate the direct effect of exclusion

on job-related attitudes such as job satisfaction and intention to stay. Social

Comparison Theory stipulates that individuals self-assess according to where

they stand within a group. Lastly, the current study added to the diversity

management knowledge base in that it focused on the perceptions of inclusion-

exclusion in social services; it also measured how these perceptions affect job

satisfaction, intention to stay and burnout. To the knowledge of the author, the

impact of inclusion-exclusion on job burnout has not be previously examined in

any published research study.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS

Introduction

This chapter covers an overview of the research methods applied in the

present study. It covers the study design, sampling, data collection and

instruments, procedures, protection of human subjects and data analysis.

Study Design

The purpose of this study was to explore how the perception of

inclusion/exclusion affects social workers and human service provider’s job

satisfaction, commitment to the organization, turnover intention, diversity

perceptions and burnout. A quantitative survey was conducted using a sample of

employees of a social service organization in San Bernardino County.

Participants include employees from all levels and program areas of the social

service organization. The Perceptions of Inclusion Scale (Mor Barak & Cherin,

1998) and Diversity Perceptions Scale (Mor Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998)

were utilized in this study. The quantitative research method was chosen in order

to describe and explore the perceptions of employees in social service

organizations relationship between perceptions of inclusion and work-related

attitudes.

Sampling

The approach used for recruitment of participants was a non-probability

availability sampling method. Several non-profit social service organizations were

contacted in order request approval to conduct data collection and to recruit

participants. One organization approved the researcher to collect data. The

participants include employees from every program area within the human

service organization. This sample was chosen because of the gap in the

research of inclusion-exclusion within social service organizations. A mass email

was sent to every employee by the chief executive of operations of the

organization. The email introduced the researcher as a student conducting a

research project. The researcher’s email was below the executive director’s

introduction. The researcher’s message included an invitation for employees in

the organization to participate in the study. It was clear in the email that

participation in the study was voluntary. As a token of appreciation, the

participants who wished to be entered in a raffle for a $25 gift card were

encouraged to email the researcher. In order to maintain anonymity, submission

of one’s name was optional.

Data Collection and Instruments

Study data was collected through the use of a self-report questionnaire.

Burnout out scores were collected using the Maslach Burnout inventory (Maslach

& Jackson, 1981). Overall job satisfaction was measured using Cammann,

Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983) as part of the Michigan Organizational

Assessment Questionnaire (OAQ). To capture turnover intention Cammann,

Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979) and Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, Cammann

(1982; See Appendix C) were used. Modified versions of the following scales

were also used: Mor Barak, Cherin, and Berkman (1998) was used to gather

scores on perceptions of diversity. Mor Barak and Cherin (1998) was utilized in

order to collect perceptions of inclusion scores. Organizational commitment

scores were collected using McKay, Avery, Tonidandel, Morris, and Hernandez

(2007; See Appendix C) adapted from Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s (1979)

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). The level of measurement

was ordinal for each question of the survey (e.g., Strongly Disagree, Moderately

Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately

Agree, Strongly Agree).

Data collection limitations include anonymity and response bias. Both

were addressed by directing the participants to SurveyMonkey®. A concern was

that participants would not be honest if they were given a paper survey. Another

concern was anonymity. This concern was addressed by conducting the survey

online as opposed to having the participants physically submit their survey to a

specific place within the office. The validity and reliability of the study was

ensured because it builds on instruments that are standardized.

Procedures

The data was gathered at a non-profit social service organization in San

Bernardino County. The executive director forwarded the email from the

researcher inviting individuals to participate. A link for online survey was provided

in the email. The employees were given a week to complete the survey. The

deadline was extended after the initial date for three more days and it was

emphasized that participation in the study was voluntary; this was done in order

to address concerns from employees. Rightly so, some employees were hesitant

to participate and expressed this to the executive director.

Those who decided to participate were required to agree to the terms

stated in the informed consent before they were able to begin the survey. At the

end of the survey the respondents were thanked and directed to the debriefing

statement page.

Protection of Human Subjects

The confidentiality of the participants was protected by asking the

participants to take the measure online. Although confidentiality cannot be

guaranteed online, measures were taken as far as technology allows.

Participation in the study was voluntary. Before beginning the survey, the

participants were to read and agree to the informed consent. The informed

consent included information about the study, the risks and benefits of the study,

and duration of the survey. The research study was approved by the California

State University, San Bernardino Institutional Review Board School of Social

Work subcommittee prior to launching the study.

Data Analysis

Using SPSS to analyze data, descriptive statistics, Pearson r

(correlations), and Mann-Whitney U analysis were conducted. The perceptions of

inclusion-exclusion were measured as well as job satisfaction, commitment to the

organization, diversity perception, turnover intention and burnout. The

participant’s perception of inclusion-exclusion and job-related attitudes within the

social service organization were measured using established scales. Frequency

distribution and percentage distribution analysis were conducted in order to

analyze the frequency distribution of responses in regards to inclusion-exclusion.

Specifically, the cumulative frequency distribution of each variable was examined

for the purpose of observing trends in responses. Pearson r test was conducted

to examine if there was an association between the independent variable

(inclusion-exclusion) and job satisfaction, turnover intention, diversity perception,

commitment to the organization, and burnout (dependent variables).

Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine group differences in workplace

attitude scale means. Mean group differences based on several demographic

characteristics and the workplace attitude scales were tested using the Mann-

Whitney U test. Group differences in workplace attitude scales were tested based

on gender, race, what program area they work in and if they are part of the

leadership team at their organization. Examining group differences based on

demographic characteristics was deemed important to consider in the data

analysis because research shows that minority groups, more often than not, do

not feel included in their place of work. These variables were analyzed in order to

explore the possibility of a relationship existing between perception of inclusion-

exclusion and demographic characteristics.

Summary

This chapter described the study’s research design, sampling, data

collection and instruments, procedures, and data analysis. Participants

responses were collected online using SurveyMonkey®. The online method of

collecting data addressed limitations of anonymity. Participants included

employees from one social service organization.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the results of the statistical

analyses conducted. The chapter will include a detailed report of the sample,

descriptive statistics, as well as the results of inferential statistics analysis

conducted. The first section will summarize the results for the descriptive

statistics which include gender, tenure, leadership team participation, race, and

program area in which they work in. The section will also report the mean,

standard deviation, range of scores and the number of respondents for the

inclusion, diversity perception, burnout, organizational commitment, job

satisfaction, and turnover scales.

Presentation of Findings

Descriptive Statistics

More than half of the survey participants, as presented in Table 1 (see

Appendix D), identified as women (n=35, 85.4%) and 5 (12.2%) accounted for

the participants that identified as men. In order to be inclusive of all gender

identities, the survey participants had the option of selecting “other,” none of the

participants identified with this option. The modal tenure range was the 0-5 years

and it consisted of 31 participants (75.6%). The 6-11 and 12-17 year ranges

consisted of 4 each (9.8%) and the 18-23 year range consisted of 1 participant

(2.4%). Twelve (29.3%) of the participants identified as non-Hispanic White and

those who did not accounted for 68.3% (n=28) of the survey participants. The

organization has a leadership team. Usually the individuals that are a part of the

leadership team meeting are directors, program managers, and senior

caseworkers. Seventeen (41.5%) participants responded that they are a part of

the leadership team and 23 (56.1%) responded “no.” Front line workers included

employees from the following service areas (also called program areas): family

and community services (n=9, 22%), counseling (n=16, 39%), refugee and

immigration services (n=2, 4.9%). Thirteen (31.7%) survey participants worked in

administration.

Table 1. Demographics of

Study Sample

N (%)

Sex

Male

5 (12.2%)

Female

(85.4%)

Race/Ethnicity

Non-Hispanic

White

(29.3%)

Other

(68.3%)

Tenure

0-5 years

(75.6%)

6-11 years

4 (9.8%)

12-17 years

4 (9.8%)

18-23 years

1 (2.4%)

Leadership Team

yes

(41.5%)

(56.1%)

Table 2 (see Appendix D) presents the results for the descriptive statistics

for the central study variables. Inclusion (n=31) scores ranged between 38 and

79 with a mean of 57.6 (SD=8.19). Diversity (n=29) scores ranged between 26

and 48 with a mean of 38.10 (SD=5.74). The burnout (n= 29) standard deviation

was 7.18 with a mean of 19.38 and the scores for this variable ranged from 7 and

32. Organizational commitment (n=29) scores ranged from 16 and 30 with a

mean of 22.28 (SD=4.22). Job satisfaction (n=32) scores ranged from 6 and 18

with a mean of 14.91 (SD=2.99). The lowest mean was for turnover (5.17) with a

standard deviation of 2.70, scores ranged between 2 and 12 and 29

respondents.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Study Scales

Min.

Max.

S.D.

Inclusion Scale

57.55

8.19

Diversity Perception

Scale

38.10

5.74

Burnout Scale

19.38

7.18

Organizational

Commitment scale

22.28

4.22

Job satisfaction Scale

14.91

2.99

Turnover Intention Scale

5.17

2.70

Inferential Analysis

Analysis was conducted utilizing SPSS software version 23. Pearson

correlation analysis was used to examine the association between the following

scales: inclusion, diversity perception, organizational commitment, burnout, job

satisfaction, and turnover intention. This correlation analysis was conducted

given that the Pearson’s correlation test describes the strength and direction of

the linear relationship between two variables (Pallant, 2013, p. 133). Table 3 (see

correlation matrix in Appendix D) presents the results of the correlation analysis.

It was found that inclusion was statistically significantly related to all of the other

study variables except burnout, gender and race. Inclusion was statistically and

significantly related to diversity perception, and the correlation was positive (r

=.41, p ≤ .05). Organizational commitment was positively correlated to inclusion

(r = .59, p ≤ .01). Higher rates of inclusion were related to higher rates of

organizational commitment. Job satisfaction was positively related to inclusion (r

= .49, p ≤ .05). Lastly, turnover intention was negatively associated to inclusion

(r = -.42, p ≤ .05).

Diversity climate was significantly correlated to organizational

commitment, burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover. There was no statistically

significant correlation found between gender, race, and diversity climate

Organizational commitment was significantly associated to diversity climate (r =

.62, p ≤ .01). Burnout was negatively associated to diversity climate at a

statistically significant level (r= -.44, p ≤ .05) as well as turnover (r = -.45, p ≤

.05). Job satisfaction was positively related to diversity climate (r = .47, p ≤ .05).

Organizational commitment was significantly correlated to burnout (r = -

.51, p ≤ .05), job satisfaction (r = .51, p ≤ .05) and turnover (r = -.47, p ≤ .05).

Burnout was also correlated to job satisfaction and turnover but it had the

opposite association in comparison to organizational commitment. Job

satisfaction was negatively related to burnout at a p=.01 level (r = -.55) and

turnover was positively correlated to burnout at a p=.05 level (r = .73). Job

satisfaction and turnover was the last association that was significant (r = -.68, p

≤ .01). Lastly, gender and race were not significantly correlated to any of the

scales.

Table 3. Correlation Matrix of Study Variables

1. Inclusion scale

2. Diversity climate

scale

.41*

3. Organizational

commitment scale

.59*

.62**

4. Burnout scale

-0.22

-.44*

-.51*

5. Job satisfaction

scale

.49*

.47*

.51*

-.55**

6. Turnover intention

scale

-.42*

-.45*

-.47*

.73**

-.68**

7. Gender

0.21

0.39

0.26

0.05

0.31

-0.33

8. Non-Hispanic

White

-0.05

-0.29

-0.08

-0.03

-0.26

0.18

-.21

Note: Gender and Non-Hispanic White were coded as follows (1 = Female, 2 =

Male); Non-Hispanic White (1 = Non-Hispanic White; All others = 2).

A series of Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to test for differences

between two independent groups on a continuous measure, this was conducted

as the non-parametric alternative to the t-test for independent samples (Pallant,

2013, p. 235). The survey question was “are you a part of the leadership team?”

therefore, the two independent groups were the “yes” group and the “no” group.

Table 4 (see Appendix D) presents these results. For the “yes” group (e.g.

members of the leadership team) the mean score on burnout was 22.00 (n=13)

and a standard deviation of 5.35 and for those that were not a part of the

leadership team the mean was 17.25 (n=16) with a standard deviation of 7.90.

The mean difference for this test was statistically significant at a p ≤ .05 level (U=

0.56). The following scales were also tested for group difference but were not

statistically significant: inclusion (U=.07, p ≥ .05), diversity perception (U=.42, p ≥

.05), organizational commitment (U=.85, p ≥ .05), job satisfaction (U=.82, p ≥

.05), and turnover intention (U=.48, p ≥.05).

Table 4. Results for Mean Group Difference in Burnout By Leadership

Team Membership

Are you a part of the leadership

team?

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Yes

5.354

17.25

7.904

Note: Based on a Mann-Whitney U test, the mean difference is statistically

significant at a p ≤ .05 level.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the implications of the results of

the present study. Limitations of the study will be presented in this chapter and

recommendations for social work practice, policy, and future research are also

presented. Lastly, the chapter will conclude with final thoughts about diversity

management, inclusion-exclusion, and the benefits of both to social service

workers and social service organizations.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of inclusion-

exclusion within a social service organization and how those perceptions affect

job satisfaction, commitment to the organization, turnover intention, diversity

perception, and burnout. The results indicate that higher perceptions of inclusion

are associated with higher levels of organizational commitment, diversity climate

perceptions and job satisfaction. It is worthy to note that inclusion and

organizational commitment had the strongest relationship. The findings also

showed that higher perceptions of inclusion was negatively associated with lower

turnover intention as well as lower burnout. These results are consistent with

research findings on the positive effects of inclusion on workforce outcomes

(Sommer, et al., 1996; Decottiis & Summers, 1987; Lawler, 1994, Ensher, Grant-

Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001; Foley, Hany-Yue, & Wong, 2005; Friendman &

Holtom, 2002; Mor Barak, 2000b; Mor Barak, Lizano, Kim, Duan, Rhee, Hsiao &

Brimhall, 2016).

Another noteworthy result is that inclusion was not significantly associated

to burnout. To the researcher’s knowledge, this is the first time burnout was

measured in correlation to inclusion. Burnout was, however, negatively

associated with diversity climate perception which alludes to the notion that

employees who perceive a more diverse work climate are less likely to be burned

out. Based on the relatively high scores on the diversity climate perception scale,

it can be inferred that employees perceive the organization to have a strong

diversity climate. Strong diversity climate is a positive quality of any organization

because it shows that diversity is important to the organizational leader.

Another positive relationship that was found between diversity climate

perceptions and the outcomes of interest included organizational commitment

which was the strongest correlation between the two. The study results also

suggest a significant association between job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. Organizational commitment was negatively related to burnout and

turnover intentions which means that the more committed a worker is to the

organization the less burned out they are and less likely to leave the

organization. Results for participants who were part of the leadership team

indicated that they are more burned out than those who were not a part of it (e.g.

line workers).

Giffords’ (2009) study stipulates that women, who are the majority in the

social services field, are more likely to score higher in organizational

commitment. In regards to the present study, most of the participants identified

as women which may be the reason for high scores but gender was not

significantly correlated to any of the scales, including organizational commitment.

Unlike gender, race has been shown to have negative effects on job-related

attitudes (Hopkins, Cohen-Callow, Kim, & Hwang, 2010) but this was also not

significantly correlated to the scales in the current study.

Limitations

Research on diversity management defines diversity as basically anything

different from the mainstream culture. Besides, race that makes one different

from the dominant culture, diversity can also include sexual orientation, age, and

disabilities. The scores from the scales showed that there is a correlation

between, for example, inclusion and diversity climate perception but this does not

mean causation; this is a limitation of the current study. Another limitation of this

study is the sample size, because the sample size was small it is limited in its

generalizability to other social service organizations. Also, not using sampling

technique also limits the generalizability of study findings.

To protect the identity of the employees, the researcher was forced to ask

whether they identified or not as non-Hispanic White. The sample size was small,

therefore, asking specific questions regarding socio-race and ethnicity might

have exposed the identity of the respondents. A larger sample size also would

have addressed this limitation. The purpose of asking specific questions

pertaining to socio-race is that correlations with inclusion and other scales might

have been significant.

Another limitation of the present study is that as a quantitative study, the

researcher was unable to explore what inclusion means to the employees. A

mixed methods approach would have allowed for the exploration of the definition

of inclusion as it pertains to diversity in social service organizations.

Recommendations for Social Work Practice, Policy and Research

It was the researcher’s hope that this study would elucidate the meaning

of diversity management for administrative leaders and explore the effects (i.e.,

job related attitudes) of inclusion-exclusion on workforce outcomes. The results

indicate that there is a significant relationship between inclusion and diversity

climate perception and this tells us that when it comes to inclusion-exclusion,

diversity climate perception is a factor to consider. Diversity management is

important in social service organizations not only because it is important to the

clients that are served but also because leaders who manage diversity create a

place that is inclusive of all; and inclusive workplaces that encourage differences

allows for more effective problem-solving (Cox, 2001). Effective diversity

management has other positive effects as well. It stands to reason that diversity

management is critical to the success social service organizations.

The present study can help guide organizational leaders in social service

organizations who want to improve diversity management given that the results

of this study indicate that perceptions of inclusion were significantly associated

with several positive work related effects such as lower turnover intention,

commitment to the organization, and job satisfaction. Executive directors want

the best for their organizations and as a result, the best means creating an

inclusive workplace by emphasizing the importance of managing diversity for the

benefit of reaching organizational goals. Mor Barak (2015) stressed the need for

more work to be done in order to better understand inclusion and Giffords (2009)

claimed that the link of attitudes and behaviors that affect how social service

providers work to accomplish their organization’s mission and goals is critical.

The present study is a step towards making the link between attitudes and

behaviors and also in understanding how they are correlated to inclusion-

exclusion. As mentioned before, the issue of managing diversity by fostering

inclusivity is congruent with social work principles and should be continued to be

studied.

In the future, longitudinal studies should be conducted in order to test if

inclusion-exclusion actually leads to the job satisfaction, diversity perceptions,

commitment to the organization, burnout, and turnover studied in the current

research (i.e. does inclusion cause positive workforce outcomes). A longitudinal

study would follow participants for a longer time frame as opposed to a single

moment in time. Now that associations between these inclusion and diversity

climate and several workplace attitudes are validated by this research study, the

next step would be to seek to test a causal relationship between the variables.

It would be equally important would be to recruit more mainstream groups

within social service organizations in order for study results to be more

representative. In the present study, although the survey asked the respondent’s

perception of inclusion, it is not clear what the mainstream group is within the

organization. Hence, the scores do not give us insight on the dominant culture

within the organization. Studies would benefit from inquiring about the culture

within an organization because doing so would facilitate interpretation of

inclusion scores regarding the dominant group and tests would indicate whether

or not inclusion is associated to work related attitudes such as job satisfaction.

Workplace interventions development that promote inclusion and diversity

management are important for social service administrators (Mor Barak, et al.,

2016). It can be assumed based on findings from this study and previous

research, that developing inclusion and diversity management interventions

would have positive outcomes for human service organizations. These

interventions are important, but more critical is that leaders believe that diversity

is vital to the success of the organization. Studies show that diversity training is

not enough. Diversity must be valued because it benefits everyone when it is

managed effectively. The policies developed must create an organizational

culture of inclusion and understanding. Legislation like affirmative action made it

possible for people of color to enter corporate America and it is of the

researcher’s hope that the present study will increase the attention and necessity

for diversity management and inclusion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, organizational leaders have a big undertaking as they learn

about diversity management. Findings from this research study validate that

inclusion has positive outcomes for organizations, now it is time to develop and

implement strategies and/or programs that will facilitate inclusion in order to

create an environment that satisfies the needs of, includes, and cares for the

employees.

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT

APPENDIX B

DEBRIEFING STATEMENT

Debriefing Statement

The study you just participated in aimed to understand the concept of

inclusion-exclusion within social service organizations. Many times social service

providers and social service organization employees are held up to high

standards of inclusion of their clients but may fall short in realizing the importance

of inclusion also amongst themselves and colleagues. I hope to find out if higher

rates of inclusion are related to more positive job-related attitudes.

If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact Eva

Rizzo or Dr. Erica Lizano at (909)537-5584. If you would like to obtain a copy of

the results of this study, please contact Dr. Erica Lizano at the above-mentioned

phone number. Results will be made available at the end of Spring Quarter of

2016.

Thank-you for your time and participation in this study

APPENDIX C

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

1. What is your gender?

Female

Male

Other (please specify)

2. Do you identify as non-Hispanic White?

Yes

3. Are you a part of the leadership team?

Yes

Other (please specify)

4. How long have you been at this organization?

0-5 years

6-11 years

12-17 years

18-23 years

24-29 years

30-35 years

Other (please specify)

5. What program area do you work in?

Family and Community Services

Counseling Services

Refugee and Immigration Services

Administration

Other

Data collection instrument is a modified version of the following sources:

Mor Barak, M.E. & Cherin, D.A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational

understanding of workforce diversity: exploring a measure of inclusion-

exclusion. Administration in Social Work, 22(1), 47.

Items number 8 and 24 were created by the author.

6. My co-workers openly share information with me

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

7. I feel that I have the cooperation of the people in my work group

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

8. I am able to influence decisions that affect my program area

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

10. I am often invited to voice my opinion in meetings with management higher

than my immediate

Supervisor

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

11. I am usually among the last to know about important changes in the

organization

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

12. I frequently receive communication from management higher than my

immediate supervisor (i.e.

memos, e-mails)

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

14. I am usually invited to important meetings in my organization

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

15. My supervisor often asks for my opinion before making important decisions

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

17. I feel valued in my relationship with my supervisor

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

18. I am able to influence decisions that affect the organization

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

20. I am often asked to participate in activities not directly related to my job

function

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

23. I am rarely invited to join my co-workers when they go out for lunch or drinks

after work

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

24. I am usually among the last to know about important changes in my program

area

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

Mor Barak, M.E., Cherin, D.A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and

personal dimensions in diversity climate: ethnic and gender differences in

employee perceptions. Journal or Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 82-104.

Item number 26 was created by the author.

26. I feel I am treated differently because of my gender

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

27. Managers here keep track record of hiring employees objectively, regardless

of their race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or age

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

29. Managers here give feedback and evaluate employees fairly, regardless of

an employee's race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, or age

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

30. I think that diverse viewpoints add value

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

34. Managers interpret human resource policies (such as sick leave) fairly for all

employees

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

35. The organization spends enough money and time on diversity awareness

and related training

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

36. Managers here give assignments based on skills and abilities of employees

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout.

Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-133.

21. Working with people directly puts too much stress on me

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

28. I feel emotionally drained from my work

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

31. I feel I'm working too hard on my job

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

33. I feel used up at the end of the workday

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

39. I feel fatigued when I get up and have to face another day on the job

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

42. I feel frustrated by my job

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

44. I feel burned out from my work

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M.A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl,

M. R. (2007). Racial Differences in Employee Retention: Are Diversity

Climate Perceptions the Key? Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 35–62.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of

organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-

247.

Items number 40, 41, and 43 were created by the author.

37. The organization inspires me to do my best work everyday

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

38. I would recommend this organization as a place of work everyday

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

40. The organization motivates me to contribute more than is normally required

to complete my work

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

41. My program area motivates me to contribute more than is normally required

to complete my work

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

43. My program area inspires me to do my best work everyday

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing

the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E.

Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Minis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing

organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices, (pp.

71-138). New York: Wiley.

9. All in all, I am satisfied with my job

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

13. In general, I don't like my job

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

16. In general, I like working here

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., Klesh, J., 1979. The Michigan

Organizational

Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished Manuscript. University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, MI.

Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P.H., Cammann, C., 1982. Observing and

Measuring Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice. New York,

NY: John Wiley and Sons Publishers.

19. I sometimes feel compelled to quit my job in my current workplace

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

22. I will probably look for a new job in the next year

Strongly Disagree, Moderately Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Moderately Agree,

Strongly Agree

REFERENCES

Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for

interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.

Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.

Buncore, A., & Crable, D. (1986, August). Equal opportunity: An incomplete

evolution. Personnel Journal, 3, 2-35.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan

Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished Manuscript.

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, MI.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Klesh, J. R. (1983).

Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S.

E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Minis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing

organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices, (pp.

71-138). New York: Wiley.

Cho, S. & Mor Barak (2008). Understanding of diversity and inclusion in a

perceived homogeneous culture: a study of organizational commitment

and job performance among Korean employees. Administration in Social

Work, 32(4), 100-126

Christo-Baker, E.A., Roberts, C., & Rogalin, C.L. (2012). Spirituality as a vehicle

for passing through the stained glass ceiling: perspectives on African-

American women’s leadership in US organizations. The Journal of Pan

African Studies, 5(2), 5-26.

Cox Jr., T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: the challenge of

managing diversity. In Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S., and Suk Jang, Y. (Eds.),

Classics of Organizational Theory (pp. 489-495). Boston, MA: Wadsworth,

Cengage Learning.

Cox, T.H. & Blake, S., (1991). Managing cultural diversity: implications for

organizational competitiveness. The Executive, 5(3), 45-56.

DeCotiis, T.A., & Summers, T.P. (1987). A path analysis of a model of the

antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. Human

Relations, 40, 445–470.

Ensher, E.A., Grant-Vallone, E.J., & Donaldson, S.I. (2001). Effects of perceived

discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 12(1), 53-72.

Findler, L., Wind, L.H., & Mor Barak, M.E. (2007). The challenge of workforce

management in a global society: modeling the relationship between

diversity, inclusion, organizational culture, and employee well-being, job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. Administration in Social Work,

31 (3), 63-94.

Foley, S., Hang-Yue, N., & Wong, A. (2005). Perceptions of discrimination and

justice: Are there gender differences in outcomes? Group and

Organizational Management, 30(4), 421-450.

Friedman, R.A., & Holtom, B. (2002). The effects of network groups on minority

employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Management, 41(4), 405-

422.

Giffords, E. D. (2009). An examination of organizational commitment and

professional commitment and the relationship to work environment,

demographic and organizational factors. Journal of Social Work, 9, 386–

404.

Hopkins, K. M., Cohen-Callow, A., Kim, H. J., & Hwang, J. (2010). Beyond intent

to leave: Using multiple outcome measures for assessing turnover in child

welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1380–1387.

Judy, R.W. & D’Amico, C. (1997) Workforce 2020: Work and Workers in the 21

Century. Indianapolis, IN.: Hudson Institute

Larkey, K. L. (1996). Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally

diverse workgroups. Academy of Management Review 21(2), 463-491.

Lawler, E.E. (1994). Motivation in work organizations. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E.E. (1995). Creating high performance organizations. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leary, M.R. & Downs, D.L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem

motive: The self-esteem system as a sociometer. In M. Kernis (Ed.),

Efficacy, agency, and self esteem. New York, NY: Plenum.

Leary M.R., Schreindorfer, L.S. & Haupt, A.L. (1995). The role of low self-esteem

in emotional and behavioral problems: Why is low self-esteem

dysfunctional? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14(3), 297-314.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout.

Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-133.

McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M.A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl,

M. R. (2007). Racial Differences in Employee Retention: Are Diversity

Climate Perceptions the Key? Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 35–62.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x

Mor Barak, M. E. (2000a). The inclusive workplace: an ecosystems approach to

diversity management. Social Work 45(4), 339-353.

Mor Barak, M.E. (2000b). Beyond affirmative action: toward a model of diversity

and organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work 23 (4), 47-68.

Mor Barak, M.E. (2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is

inclusion? Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership, &

Governance, 39(2), 83-88.

Mor Barak, M.E. & Cherin, D.A (1998) A tool to expand Organizational

understanding of workforce diversity. Administration in Social Work 22(1),

47-64.

Mor Barak, M., Findler, L. & Wind, L. (2003). Cross-cultural aspects of diversity

and well-being in the workplace: an international perspective. Journal of

Social Work Research and Evaluation, 4(2), 145-169.

Mor Barak, M., Lizano, E.L., Kim, A., Duan, L., Rhee, M., Hsiao, H, Brimhall, K.

C. (2016). The promise of diversity management for climate of inclusion: a

state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis. Human Service Organizations:

Management, Leadership, & Governance, DOI:

10.1080/23303131.2016.1138915

Morrison, A.M. & Von Glinow (1990). Women and minorities in management.

American Psychologists 45(2), 200-208.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of

organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-

247.

Nonprofit HR Solutions (2013).Nonprofit Employment Trends Survey [Data file].

Retrieved from http://www.nonprofithr.com/wp-

content/uploads/2013/03/2013-Employment-Trends-Survey-Report.pdf

Pallant, J. (2013). A Step-by-Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS:

SPSS Survival Manual, 5

edition. New York, NY: Open University Press.

Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2014). The sound of silence.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘inclusive

organizations. British Journal of Management, 25, 488-502.

Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management enough? organizational inclusion

to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197-217.

Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P.H., Cammann, C., 1982. Observing and

Measuring Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice. New York,

NY: John Wiley and Sons Publishers.

Sommer, S.M., Bae, S.H. & Luthans, F. (1996). Organizational commitment

across cultures: The impact of antecedents on Korean employees. Human

Relations, 49(7), 977–993.

Swim, J.K., Aikin, K.J., Hall, W.S., & Hunter, B.A. (1995). Sexism and racism:

old-fashioned and modem prejudices, Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68(2), 199-2 14.

United States Census Bureau. (2014). Table 11. Percent Distribution of the

Projected Population by Hispanic Origin and Race for the United States:

2015 to 2060 [data file]. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/2014/summary

tables.html