How exclusive are inclusive organisations?

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to anchor the buzzword “inclusive organisation” in a theory-based perspective by identifying meanings of inclusion and exclusion in various scientific discourses. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides an overview about inclusion/exclusion and its different usage in four “western” scientific discourses. By analysing the role of organisations in each discourse, relevant aspects for specifying the concept of “inclusive organisations” are identified. Findings – The concept of “inclusive organisations” needs to be grounded in a wider industry context for determining adequate action strategies towards inclusiveness. More attention should be paid to the excluding effects of including measures and resulting changes in power relations. Research limitations/implications – The conceptual approach of the paper needs to be anchored in further empirical research on the measurability of inclusion/exclusion within organisations and on the implementation of organisational practices towards more inclusiveness. Originality/value – The value of the paper is its interdisciplinary approach to concepts of organisational inclusion and exclusion that are usually analysed separately. This fresh perspective paves the way for an original contribution to further develop the idea of “inclusive organisations”.

Closing for the Benefit of Openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process

“…Towards this end we work with a relational framework of inclusion and exclusion (Ashcraft et al, 2012;Dobusch, 2014;Goodin, 1996) to establish an analytical language capable of describing the potential and limits of the open qualities of strategizing labelled as 'open'. With regard to our research context, this means analysing processes, measures or actions of strategizing that are referred to as 'open' in terms of both what they include and exclude at the same time (e.g.…”

“…While this literature distinguishes 'transparency' and 'inclusiveness' as key dimensions of open strategy-making, we propose a relational framework of inclusion and exclusion (Ashcraft, Muhr, Rennstam, & Sullivan, 2012;Dobusch, 2014;Goodin, 1996) to assess the actual open qualities of strategy-making labelled as 'open'. This is based on the assumption that inclusion constitutively implies exclusion and therefore openness needs to be assessed in light of its accompanying -or even required -forms of closure.…”

Reassembling difference? Rethinking inclusion through/as embodied ethics

“…Inclusion is a compelling force, itself emerging from a critique of the instrumental and individualizing tendencies of its US-originating predecessor, diversity. Yet, inclusion has also been subject to critique -as 'old wine in new bottles' (Nkomo, 2014) and as a managerial buzzword that needs 'anchoring' (Dobusch, 2014). Drawing on feminist writing on recognition, embodiment and ethics, I argue here that inclusion, whilst appealing, requires some reflexive rethinking, both in order to question our own practices and assumptions (Holck and Muhr, (Ahonen et al, 2014: 263).…”

De zevenkoppige draak van ongelijkheid

“…De aard en sterkte van deze ongelijkheidspraktijken hebben invloed op de effectiviteit van diversiteitsinterventiesde maatregelen die we inzetten om meer diversiteit, gelijkheid en inclusie te creëren (Yang & Konrad, 2011). Hierdoor hebben maatregelen die gelijkheid moeten bevorderen, vaak tragere en soms ook andere effecten dan bij de invoering ervan was voorzien (Dobusch, 2014;Holck, 2015). Initiatieven voor meer gendergelijkheid en diversiteit worden echter zelden of nooit bestudeerd in samenhang met initiatieven tegen gendergelijkheid en diversiteit.…”