Lessons Learned from Community Organizations - Wiley Online Library

1 downloads 3669 Views 209KB Size Report
School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Burwood East, VIC 3125, Australia, and ... Corresponding author email: [email protected]. Workforce diversity ...... www.cricketvictoria.com.au/page/all_abilities_cricket.html.
bs_bs_banner

British Journal of Management, Vol. 25, 518–537 (2014) DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12034

Lessons Learned from Community Organizations: Inclusion of People with Disabilities and Others Yuka Fujimoto, Ruth Rentschler, Huong Le, David Edwards and Charmine E. J. Härtel1 School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Burwood East, VIC 3125, Australia, and 1 UQ Business School, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia Corresponding author email: [email protected] Workforce diversity requires broader vision and scope in managing diversity so that there is greater inclusion inside and outside organizations. This paper provides this vision by extending the stream of workforce diversity research to community-oriented inclusion and its processes. The authors interviewed 34 people with disabilities and 40 people without disabilities who were stakeholders of community arts and sports organizations. The participants with disabilities were mainly arts audiences, artists and sports athletes, and the participants without disabilities were mainly managers and government officials. The key findings report the importance of inclusion through common interest groups being facilitated by (1) non-minority specific communal activities, (2) listening to minority voices, (3) multidimensional accessibility, (4) availability of organizational and natural champions and (5) cross-boundary networks and collaborations. In order to create more inclusive organizations, the authors suggest that private organizations need more community-oriented values, goals and strategies that foster boundaryless inclusion of people with disabilities and other minority groups in organizations and society.

Introduction This study applies a sociological community approach to diversity inclusion with the aim of extending the organizational perspective of workoriented inclusion. The findings advocate community approaches to diversity inclusion, suggesting that the internal focus of workforce diversity literature may be too narrow, inadequately addressing the gap between the privileged and the less privileged in organizations and society. By examining community-oriented inclusion of arts and sports organizations based upon Vaisey’s (2007) sociological community theory, the Communityoriented Inclusion Framework is established for work organizations. We argue that a community We would like to thank Associate Editor Professor Stella Nkomo and three anonymous reviewers for their time and valuable suggestions for this article.

perspective of inclusion widens workforce diversity research and provides organizations with a framework for acting as communities of influence in organizations and in society. Work-oriented inclusion processes have largely involved human resource management interventions, which have not been particularly effective in developing inclusive organizations and reaping economic benefits (Kalev, Dobbin and Kelly, 2006; Shen et al., 2009). Unfortunately, work discrimination continues with growing social inequities in income and opportunities (International Labour Office, 2007). Organizational demographic research also confirms that minority groups feel isolated and excluded from organizational social networks (Gray et al., 2007; Lopez, Hodson and Roscigno, 2009; Sanchez and Brock, 1995). The study reported here responds to calls for a new way to manage workforce diversity, providing a community perspective to diversity

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.

Lessons from Community Organizations inclusion (e.g. Bilimoria, Joy and Liang, 2008; Ferdman, 2003; Flynn, 2005; Linnehan and Konrad, 1999). People with disabilities were selected as the target group for inclusion in this study, as they are among society’s poorest (World Health Organization, 2005). Today, one in every six people – about one billion – is reported to have a disability, facing disproportionate exclusion, underemployment, unemployment and poor health outcomes (International Labour Office, 2012). They are particularly disempowered and isolated in organizations and communities (Barnes and Mercer, 2005; Kulkarni and Lengnick-Hall, 2011). Studying the inclusion process for people with disabilities therefore provides insight into the inclusion of marginalized people in organizations and society. As arts and sports activities are encouraged as a means of creating inclusion worldwide (UNESCO, 2003; United Nations, 2012), we listened to the voices of 74 stakeholders of community arts and sports organizations. In doing so, we develop the Community-oriented Inclusion Framework, extending the organizational inclusion literature.

Conceptualization of community and inclusion In the workforce diversity literature, Lorbiecki and Jack (2000) called to move diversity management away from the business case argument, while Tatli (2011) called for complementary social justice and managerial approaches. The business perspective for diversity focuses on ‘leveraging marketplace opportunities, greater creativity, higher quality team problem solving’ for obtaining competitive advantage (Cox and Blake, 1991; Robinson and Dechant, 1997, p. 26). However, a community perspective has been nascent in the workforce diversity literature for the past decade (e.g. Mor Barak, 2010; Özbilgin, 2009; Ragins et al., 2012). Our study takes the community perspective one step further towards creating more inclusive organizations. The term community is defined variously (Marquis and Battilana, 2009). It is acknowledged as part of a shared social identity (e.g. Southerton, 2002), with a common location (e.g. Mulroy and Shay, 1997), common interests in events such as arts and sports (e.g. Secker et al., 2009; Young

519 et al., 2006) and as a process of developing the subjective experience of ‘we-feeling’ or ‘natural belonging’ in communal groups (Vaisey, 2007). Vaisey’s (2007) theory used the locale of the commune for his study of community, joining historically divided concepts of the social world (Tönnies, 1988) between Gemeinschaft (i.e. substantive community) and Gesellschaft (i.e. structural community). Substantive community refers to shared values, moral order and shared group identity for social interaction. Structural community refers to the associations between individuals, social network infrastructures such as the presence of authority, provision of physical space, common meeting places, demographic similarity and setting regular meeting times. Historically, social capital and network theories (e.g. Brint, 2001; McPherson and Rotolo, 1996; Putnam, 1993) emphasize structure as a basis for social interaction. The structural community, however, was contested by other sociologists, on the basis that the absence of shared values, norms and meanings is insufficient to create moral order and may, in fact, encourage exclusion (e.g. Etzioni, 2001; Sandel, 1996; Taylor, 2003). By testing the effect of structural and substantive communities on members’ experiences across 60 urban communes, Vaisey (2007) revitalized substantive community discourse, signifying an authentic relational life beyond rationality. His study found that substantive community life was associated with structural community: namely, frequent interactions, the presence of authority and investment, but not social homophily (i.e. similar age, education and father’s occupation). We applied Vaisey’s theory of community (Vaisey, 2007) to another type of community setting: namely, the context in which arts and sports organizations enable people with disabilities to engage in community activities. Arts and sports community organizations include both substantive and structural dimensions of community based upon the common passion for and interest in arts and sport. Arts organizations’ community activities include local community festivals and other amateur arts-related events such as music, dance, exhibitions and film. Sports organizations’ community activities refer to amateur sports activities such as baseball, football, trampoline and bowling activities. On the whole, organizational diversity inclusion frameworks are silent on the meaning and process

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

520

Y. Fujimoto et al.

of inclusion from the perspectives of minority groups and their supportive stakeholders (Horwitz, Bowmaker-Falconer and Searll, 1996; Mor Barak, 2010). Based on Vaisey’s community perspective, we examined inclusion rather than integration (Northway, 1997). While integration focuses on disability rights, policies and physical assimilation, inclusion has a broader vision for improving the ‘quality’ of integration and co-participation with people with disabilities through societal change (Farrell 2000; Vislie 2003). Nonetheless, current definitions of organizational inclusion tend to adopt a work perspective. For example, Roberson (2006) examined inclusion across 51 private organizations. She found that inclusion was defined as the ‘participation of all employees’ for ‘competitive business advantage’ by ‘recognizing, understanding, and respecting’ the ways in which we differ (Roberson, 2006, p. 220). Similarly, Pelled, Ledford and Mohrman (1999, p. 1014) defined inclusion as ‘the degree to which an employee is accepted and treated as an insider by others in a work system’. Inclusion has been about belonging (Lirio et al., 2008, p. 443; Shore et al., 2010), engagement (Avery et al., 2008) and having a voice (Bell et al., 2011; Wasserman, Gallegos and Ferdman, 2008, p. 176) within the workplace. These are important and useful definitions of inclusion, but they neglect the voice of minorities and supportive stakeholders. Some sociology or diversity management scholars extend the organizational definition of inclusion (Giddens, 2009; Mor Barak, 2010; Syed and Kramar, 2009) to equal opportunity for minorities to participate in all spheres of social activities, including work and non-work activities in organizations. The importance of inclusion in social activities (inside and outside organizations) is emphasized by sociology scholars, who identify social relations in everyday life as a source of mutually beneficial relationships, acting as a catalyst for co-production of new ideas and innovation (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988). Some argue that social networking, even with weak social ties, provides minority members with access to majority resources, such as receiving information for job openings about employment (Granovetter, 1973; Putnam, 1995). Inside businesses, networks are acknowledged as a means of gaining competitive advantage (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Community studies in the context of neighbourhoods, family and social

clubs (Loury, 1977; Putnam, 1993) propose that norms of social networking, togetherness and trust in common interest groups encourage voluntary participation to co-strengthen regional economies. These studies underscore the benefits of examining inclusive activities in community arts and sports organizations. Exposure to common interest groups establishes a shared social identity (Rink and Ellemers, 2007; Shore et al., 2010), which acts as a means of enhancing information sharing that produces new ideas and innovation (e.g. Roberge and van Dick, 2010; Van der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005). Research in private organizations reported that people with disabilities receive less informal interaction when compared with employees without disabilities and are given less challenging tasks (Kulkarni and Lengnick-Hall, 2011; LignugarisKraft et al., 1988). Other minority groups reported similar experiences (Mor Barak, 2010).

Inclusion of people with disabilities in organizations and society We define disabilities based upon the social model of disability, which articulates that disability is an outcome of societal process, involving political power, organizational attitudes, social structure and social relations (e.g. Abberley, 1987; Barnes, Oliver and Barton, 2002). Therefore, people with disabilities not only have physical and/or mental impairments, but also experience various obstacles in conducting activities, including workrelated activities (Bruyère and James, 1997; Kulkarni and Lengnick-Hall, 2011). Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Tajfel et al., 1971) explains the tendency of people to strive for and maintain a positive self-image as a result of a favourable comparison of their group against others. According to this theory, people without disabilities – who may be more privileged – tend to associate with others without disabilities, categorizing people with disabilities as out-group members, creating a culture of ignorance, misconception, stereotyping and stigma (Mclaughlin, Bell and Stringer, 2004). Categorizing people as ‘disabled’ in society insinuates a complex mix of social and institutional attitudes that devalue, oppress and reinforce people with disabilities’s out-group identity (Harlan and Robert, 1998; Tajfel, 1974). Even when employed, they remain in entry-level or

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

Lessons from Community Organizations unskilled and low-earning positions, resulting in significant wage gaps, little work participation and training (Bell, 2007, Schur et al., 2009). A recent study by the United Nations found that exclusion of people with disabilities from the workforce costs 3–7% of Gross Domestic Product in some developing countries (Buckup, 2009). To date, research in relation to inclusion of people with disabilities in organizations has focused on: (1) work treatment through formal and informal HR interventions such as training, education, mentoring opportunities, job suitability ratings and socialization process (Baldridge and Veiga, 2001, 2006; Campolieti, 2009; Colella, 2001; Florey and Harrison, 2000); and (2) work accommodation of employees with disabilities from the perspectives of managers, co-workers and people with disabilities (Hunt and Hunt, 2004; Kulkarni and Lengnick-Hall, 2011; Mclaughlin, Bell and Stringer, 2004; Stone and Colella, 1996). Current organizational prescriptions therefore include: (a) recruiting, selecting, evaluating and rewarding people with disabilities based upon job descriptions; (b) training and development of people with disabilities accompanied by mentor programmes, rehabilitation, work accommodation and work redesign; (c) disability awareness training and supervisory training; and (d) stakeholders’ support such as from top managers, social service agencies, therapists, labour unions and families (Bell, 2007; Jones, 1997; Klimoski and Donahue, 1997). More recently, inclusive social contexts for people with disabilities (i.e. inclusive work units and co-worker perceptions) have been proposed to foster their help seeking behaviour (Kulkarni, 2012). Despite these efforts, disability discrimination at work is still rampant worldwide (International Labour Office, 2012). In relation to people with disabilities inclusion in organizations, sociology scholarship has shifted its focus from a ‘special needs approach’ through social welfare programmes and employment services toward the ‘supportive environmental approach’ that encourages full people with disabilities participation in mainstream activities (Hammel et al., 2008). In practice, however, little of the extant research takes a holistic social and environmental approach to people with disabilities inclusion. Analyses of disability and work have rarely addressed the social and environmental needs of people with disabilities (Barnes and Mercer, 2005). Our research addresses these issues

521 by exploring the community-oriented inclusion processes of people with disabilities undertaken by community organizations. Community organizations are considered to be public-spirited entities that provide role models of diversity inclusion for other organizations (Xu, 2007). As the purpose of community organizations is to enhance inclusion rather than to maximize profit (Metz and Kulik, 2008), we argue that there are lessons to be learned for private organizations in bridging social divisions inside and outside organizations, thus extending their vision beyond the profit motive. Therefore, we examine two research questions: RQ1: How do people with disabilities and other stakeholders of arts and sports community organizations perceive inclusion? RQ2: What is the new learning of diversity inclusion for private organizations from exploring inclusion processes for people with disabilities in arts and sports community organizations?

Method Data collection Data were collected in Victoria, Australia, through two main sources: in-depth interviews and arts and sports community sector reports. We adopted Neuman’s (2006) non-probability sampling strategy (i.e. purposive sampling) to select participants. Using key definitions of community as common interests and a common location, participants in arts and sports community events were approached in metropolitan and regional Victoria, Australia (cf. Clarkson, 1995). In accord with stakeholder theory (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1984), managers and government officials were selected if they influenced the inclusion processes of arts and sports community activities, and people with disabilities were selected if they were influenced by the activities’ inclusion process. First, we approached stakeholders of arts and sports community organizations, all of which included people with disabilities in their activities. The arts organizations consisted of theatres or arts centres for people with disabilities, youth art centres and Arts Victoria (state government arts funding body). Sports organizations consisted of cricket clubs for all abilities, community netball, sports and recreation advocacy networks for

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

522

Y. Fujimoto et al.

Table 1. Demographic information for participants Stakeholders

Sample (N = 74)

Gender

Average age groupa

Examples of participants’ roles and/or occupations

Theatre workers and performers with disabilities, artist Disability film festival audiences, students with disabilities Community club athletes with disabilities such as netball club, cricket club participants General manager, executive managers, board members, chairman, marketing manager of arts organizations, community arts managers, Arts Access managers, arts centre managers Sports club managers, sports club managers for people with disabilities Arts manager (policy and research), Office of Disability managers, local government (community), project managers

With disability

Without disability

Female

Male

5 19

1 0

2 10

4 9

21–30 21–40

Sports club participants

7

0

2

5

N/A

Arts managers

1

17

10

8

41–50

Sports club managers

0

12

7

5

31–40

Government officials (in the arts, sports and other sectors) Total

2

10

8

4

41–50

34

40

39

35

Artists or performers Arts audiences

a

As some participants did not wish to reveal their age, we were not able to include information on the age range of every participant.

people with disabilities, the YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) and Sport and Recreation Victoria (government advisory body for sport/ recreation). Second, interviews were conducted with organizational managers and government officials, including two managers with disabilities. Third, interviews with audiences, artists and athletes with disabilities were conducted. Arts audiences with disabilities were included in the sample because they are equally important stakeholders of arts activities as those involved as artists. In order to interview people with disabilities, four approaches were taken in the study: (1) approaching them at arts performances that catered for them; (2) sending an email invitation through the students’ disability resource centre at a local university; (3) visiting theatres for artists with disabilities; and (4) visiting inclusive sports clubs. We approached participants by email or telephone. Only if they agreed to participate in the project were they sent the consent form. Interview time and place were arranged to suit participants’ schedules. Seventy-four participants were recruited, including 18 arts managers (one with a disability), 12 sports managers, 12 government officials (four in the arts sector, two in the sport/recreation sector and six in various institutions such as disability services, which include two people with

disabilities), 19 arts audiences with disabilities, five artists with disabilities, one artist without disability and seven athletes with disabilities. In total, 34 participants with disabilities and 40 participants without disabilities were interviewed. Table 1 provides demographic information on participants. The other important source of data was arts and sports sector reports in relation to inclusion. Specifically, reports titled Creative Capacity+ Arts for all Victorians (Arts Victoria, 2002), Access to All Areas (Accessible Arts, 1999), Making the Journey: Arts and Disability in Australia (Australia Council, 2005), Access for All Abilities (Community Access Unit, 2012), All Abilities Cricket (Cricket Victoria, 2012) and Swimming for people with disabilities (Swimming Victoria 2012) were used to verify our key findings and to understand the organizational value and normative context of inclusion. In order to explore the meaning of inclusion and its processes, participants were asked four open questions in relation to inclusion: • What does the term inclusion mean to you? • What is the role of inclusion in [Arts /Sport] community events? • What factors facilitated inclusion in the [Arts /Sport] sector?

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

Lessons from Community Organizations • What needs to be done to increase the level of inclusion into the broader [Arts/Sport] community for artists/audiences/arts workers or athletes/audiences/sports workers? To people with disabilities, we followed up with prompts such as: ‘Do you feel included in the arts/sports sector?’ ‘When you visit the Arts Centre, do you perceive that you are being included?’ Each interview ranged between 1 and 1.5 hours. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. Data analysis The qualitative data permitted us to quantify and verify common phrases and sentences through a data coding process (Bernard, 1996). For each group (e.g. arts managers), two independent coders content-analysed the verbatim responses separately and developed codes and categories to establish themes for each research question. The goal was to find emergent themes in the data by identifying categorizing patterns (Krippendorff, 1980; Miles and Huberman, 1994). As a result of short answers from people with disabilities, the units of information were sometimes in phrases and sentences rather than paragraphs. The coders then compared and contrasted analyses and agreed on common themes such as accessibility, champions, listening to minority voices. Where disagreement occurred, two coders read and reread transcripts until consensus was reached. Inter-rater reliability between the two coders was approximately 80%. Next, one author read the arts and sports sector reports in relation to their inclusion to verify our main findings and to understand the key organizational values and norms of inclusion, and sought more themes,. Through the multiple voices of stakeholders of arts and sports organizations and data verification through the reports, we confirmed key themes and strengthened the study’s validity. As a result of the thematic analysis and a visual mapping exercise (Plowman et al., 2007), we developed a Community-oriented Inclusion Framework.

Results The results are divided into sections based upon the two research questions.

523 RQ1: How do people with disabilities and other stakeholders of arts and sports community organizations perceive inclusion? In order to answer RQ1, we asked the interviewees how they perceived inclusion. Table 2 presents a summary of community-oriented inclusion data from the interviews. The table reports major themes identified by stakeholders, number of respondents and sample accounts. The major themes of ‘participation’, ‘involvement’ and ‘access’ in communal activities were reported by arts/sports managers and government officials, and the major theme of ‘being accepted and included by others’ was reported by artists, arts audiences and athletes with disabilities. Representative quotes from managers and government officials set the scene for participation: Inclusion means choice, opportunity and support to engage in the same activities as the rest of the community. It is about removing barriers to participation in arts or any other activities. A barrier is anything to do with a person’s social background, or abilities, or age, or gender – all those things. [Male sports manager, middle years] Inclusion has to do with the social world. Inclusion connotes meaning of the activity and how we structure the social world so people get maximum meaning from participating. It is a practice that supports this. Inclusion also means participating at a level relevant to a person’s ability. [Male government health and access official, middle years]

A male sports manager of no boundaries cricket club highlighted progressive involvement: We see inclusion on a couple of levels. We enable players with a disability to participate in their own competition to the best of their ability and to maximize their potential. Participants are encouraged and assisted to become administrative representatives at regional, state and national board levels. At club level, inclusion means being an active member of the club at training, as a player and in social activities.

A female regional arts marketing manager, mentioned the importance of access: Inclusion is more about getting different types of people, from different types of communities to come into the Arts Centre to enjoy the arts. It doesn’t matter about demographics, financial status, ethnic background, beliefs.

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

524

Y. Fujimoto et al.

Table 2. Meaning of inclusion by arts and sports stakeholders Stakeholders

Major themes

N

Sample accounts

Art managers

Participation and involvement

25

Accessibility

15

‘It is about ensuring that really there are no boundaries or no barriers between any persons within a community.’ ‘People gaining something meaningful from participating in the activity, i.e. not just attending but being involved in every aspect.’ ‘Well, the word accessible comes to mind when making a venue, through the physical element to the conceptual, accessible to all ages.’ ‘Inclusion is very much making sure that the venue is accessible on one level to people with disabilities (PWD) of various sorts.’ ‘Inclusion to arts means that patrons, workers and artists can participate at any venue, festival or events.’ ‘Anyone with accessibility needs covered not just mobility but hearing, sights, needs, learning impairments needs all that sort of things.’ ‘Inclusion (for PWD) means their active participation; they are included in all parts of whatever is happening, to the best of their ability. It’s a reciprocal relationship, both the person with a disability and the club gain.’ ‘At the club level, inclusion means being an active member of the club at training, as a player and in social activities.’ ‘It means choice, opportunity and support to engage in the same activities as the rest of the community. It’s about the same opportunity and the same choice.’ ‘Inclusion, I would say, is where absolutely as many constituents as possible would be involved in as many agencies and services provided by Government.’ ‘Physical access to the built environment.’ ‘I believe that access is a human right and so inclusion is the right of all people to have the same abilities and access as anybody else.’ ‘Participation in the community is based on choice and equity.’

Arts managers with disabilities

Participation and involvement Accessibility

1 1

Sports managers

Participation and involvement

7

Government officials

Participation and involvement

18

Accessibility

16

Participation

2

Accessibility

2

Government officials with disabilities

Artists and audiences with disabilities

Athletes with disabilities

Being accepted and included by others

12

7

‘The built environment is critical in ensuring equal access. If people have equal access, they can choose.’ ‘Inclusion implies that exclusion was there to begin with. It should be a person’s right naturally and that there are no boundaries.’ ‘It is equal access and opportunity. Anti-discrimination [is] not looking at me differently. [It is] involving everybody: disabled and the non-disabled.’ ‘The term inclusion means that I am included as an artist at, say, Back-to-Back which is a disabled theatre company, and recognized for my work. I also do a bit of work at La Mama in Melbourne and I find that there they recognize me for my work and support me in many ways.’ ‘Feeling part of “the family” and easy access without loss of dignity.’ ‘Being treated like everyone else but also having my special needs met.’

People with disabilities reported similar stories. Inclusion is seen to be about substantive inclusion for people with disabilities and people without disabilities. As the substantive theory of community emphasizes group identity and shared value for social interaction, male athletes with disabilities in the cricket club for all abilities said inclusion was ‘feeling part of the family’ and ‘without loss of dignity’. It is also being a part of activities that other people (disabled or able-bodied) are taking part in. a cohesive society. It creates ‘us and them’ culture. People need to have the same rights so that they interact with the general art loving community.

able to participate in all aspects of society, employment, education, arts and recreation. Being on an equal playing field, not patronized or ostracized.

These perceptions of inclusion recognize the recent developments in diversity management literature (e.g. Mor Barak, 2010; Nishii, 2012; Özbilgin, 2009; Syed and Kramar, 2009) which have begun to identify the changing nature of inclusion. Inclusion has moved from • understanding legal mandates and internal HR perspectives to ‘boundaryless’ inclusion • an emphasis on internal influences on inclusion to interdisciplinary perspectives

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

Lessons from Community Organizations

525

Table 3. Organizational values and norms Arts and sports organizations’ core value for people with disabilities (PWD) inclusion are based upon the Victorian State Disability Plan (2002–2012), which advocates the rights of PWD for full participation in the community based upon the principles of ‘equality’, ‘dignity and self-determination (choice)’, ‘diversity’ and ‘non-discrimination’ (Disability Services Division, 2002). Arts organizations Arts Victoria believes that the role of arts is to accomplish broader community outcomes such as building stronger communities, strengthening economic growth and sustainability as a greater place to live, work and do business, and contributing to greater social justice outcomes by embracing diversity and advancing reconciliation (Arts Victoria, 2002). Major activities of arts organizations therefore keep community in mind so that emerging art works are integrated with long-term community building strategies to create a vibrant and sustainable social ecosystem and communal identity. For example, the programmes such as the Mwerre Anthurre art studio and the Burker Cartoon Gallery ‘bring the artistic skills of people with a disability to public attention, generate income, take creative and practical approaches to participation and build community and business relationships’ (Australia Council, 2005, p. 9). The Open Art community programme attracted participation of 120 people, of whom 70% had a mental illness. By learning and making things together, the class enabled the members of community to gain understanding of what it means to live with mental illness (Australia Council, 2005). Sports organizations Government policy in sport encourages access for people of all abilities as part of recreation activities (Sport and Recreation Victoria, 2006). Access for All Abilities (AAA) is a Victorian Government initiative coordinated by Sport and Recreation Victoria. The programmes under AAA develop and support inclusive sports activities for PWD by inviting participation from community groups, clubs, leisure centres, family, carers and friends. The offer is not only to foster all abilities’ physical wellbeing, but also to provide opportunities to make new friends, have fun and learn new skills from one another (Community Access Unit, 2012). AAA facilitates PWD in organized activities and provides a pathway from community to elite levels as well as training to become coach, umpire and volunteer. All Abilities Cricket promotes enjoyment as the most important consideration for PWD, and therefore they show flexibility in rules. For example, All Abilities Cricket has developed outdoor and indoor cricket to cater for different ability levels. In 2012, the Victorian All Abilities Cricket Carnival was supported by local community sports groups, which attracted over 200 participants, supporters and coaches to bring people of all abilities together, enjoying friendly competition (City of Casey, 2012). All abilities swimming club highlighted that a major barrier that many PWD face is community attitudes and the physical environment, requiring cross-boundary efforts to include PWD into mainstream activities (Swimming Victoria, 2012).

• the importance of subjective, holistic and process-oriented views, which include substantive understanding of inclusion. Based on these findings, we define inclusion as ‘individual participation, involvement and access to communal activities so that people from different social groups feel accepted and included by others within all organizations, the surrounding community and society’. This definition differs from existing terminologies of organizational inclusion, which emphasize minorities feeling part of decision-making, respected and integrated within the work system (e.g. Mor Barak and Cherin, 1998; Pelled, Ledford and Mohrman, 1999, Roberson, 2006). Our definition suggests that inclusion is driven by an organization’s social mission to enhance co-participation of diverse members through communal activities (work and non-work) inside and outside organizations. It recognizes greater geographical mobility, co-presence and socio-economic exchange of minority and majority members, facilitating shared identity among dissimilar members. As this study included inclusion perception of people without disabilities and people with disabilities,

we propose that this definition has implications for inclusion of other minorities. Further, we also relied on arts and sports sector reports as secondary data sources to explain the key concepts of inclusion. Table 3 summarizes the content of reports, verifying the key concepts of inclusion reported by interviewees. It summarizes the organizations’ inclusive values and norms (i.e. substantive theory of community) underpinning a dynamic inclusive process for people with disabilities (cf. Klimoski and Donahue, 1997). The next section elaborates the inclusion process by reporting on the five dimensions that facilitate communal activities. We then link these five dimensions to practical and theoretical implications for private organizations. RQ2: What is the new learning for the private sector from exploring inclusion processes for people with disabilities in arts and sports community organizations? In answering RQ2, we extend Vaisey’s structural theory of community. Table 4 illustrates the comparative accounts of people with disabilities and people without dis-

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

526

Y. Fujimoto et al.

Table 4. Comparative accounts of people with disabilities and people without disabilities Dimension of communityoriented inclusion

People with disabilities

People without disabilities

Sample accounts

N=

Sample accounts

N=

Non-minorityspecific communal activities

Back to Back Theatre shows go into the community where people are, rather than expecting them to come to the theatre; community work and community shows help other people with disabilities (PWD) to be involved with arts. (Artist) There is a role for special teams and for integrated teams but I prefer the latter. (Athlete)

21

27

Listening to minority groups

Listen to what I have to say . . . If I want to hear it in a different kind of a way, they try and explain it in some other kind of a way so everyone understand each other. (Artists from theatre for PWD) Physical access Being able to get around and being able to continue my life (Arts audience) I’ve only been disabled for 3 years and I have encountered a lot of inaccessibility issues in the city. (Arts audience) Getting to practice and games, I’ve always had to rely on other people for transport. (Athlete) It not focused on people with disabilities, the focus is on everybody, accessibility for everybody. (Government official)

13

It means being included, not just disability specific programme running in the house (Government official) You’d look at the people with disabilities theatre as an example of inclusion in that ‘it’s about ensuring that really there’s no boundaries or no barriers between any person within a community. Inclusion in theatre and the arts for people with a disability. (Arts manager) Allowing anyone who wants to be involved and participant and also to help plan it as well so it is both ends of the scale. (Government official)

Informational access That’s the big barrier- communication. If there is not information about accessibility of the company and their strategies, their disability action plans, their policies, then . . . that’s a huge barrier. (Arts manager) I am able to find this event with programme guides and audio loops. The Arts Centre are trying to use subtitles for movies so I don’t have to depend on audio loops. (Arts audience)

14

Relational and attitudinal access Well if we don’t understand something, may be explain it in another way. Also, if people can’t hear anything maybe try using sign language (Artists) Why can’t I just come into the front of theatre like everyone else? Staff approach in good manner and helpful, some are and some aren’t, it depends on the places. (Arts audience) I am welcomed with consideration, I’m given the seats at the end of the row and those with not too many steps. (Arts audience)

18

Cross-boundary network and collaborations

The key is to get someone like myself, an access consultant, to come in and help write the policy and your accessibility action plan. (Arts manager) Question of segregated vs integrated services. The issue is – if broader community services are not welcoming of people with disabilities then they will want to segregate and will only feel included in their own community. (Government official)

4

Availability of natural champions

Looking for individuals and organizations to become leaders in inclusion. Local papers will write positive stories about PWD. It’s about leadership. (Government official) So during the phase of arts access, I created an access awareness programme which its ultimate outcome was to give the same page knowledge and tools to crease accessibility for patrons, workers within the arts and artists to perform at festivals, venues and event. (Art Manager)

2

23

16

24 Not having the barriers and not having the difficulties of access and involvement in all parts of life. (Government official) I believe that the access is a human right and so inclusion in the right of people to have the same abilities and access as anybody else –(Arts manager) The equipment is lighter, they use junior bats and a tennis ball and only one batsman. We rotate the fielding positions so that every gets to play in each position including wicket-keeper and everyone gets to bowl. We try and match skills so that the better batsmen and better bowlers face each other earlier in the game. It’s a mixed gender, mixed ability game. (Sports manager) 21 For deaf people the key barrier is communication. Without equal access to communication people who are deaf are disempowered. Equal access to communication is critical factor in inclusion for deal people. (Arts manager) Hardest things to make sure that there is that sort of constant word in many different ways as possible . . . information provision, communication are important. (Government official) Information provision and marketing and communication. It is difficult for organizations to know how to advertise to people with a disability. People with a disability find it difficult to know what activities they can go to. (Government official) 18 Attitudinal before the usual physical access things that people always think is stopping people accessing things in the community. If the attitude is right, everything will flow. (Arts manager) Not everyone is interested. I asked a few contacts from clubs and their response is ‘what for’. You can’t make these things compulsory; you’d lose the spirit of it..(Sports manager) Need to change the attitude of the wider community. The issue is still centered around the individual. Need to think about it in the context of the community – everyone should be able to enter a building for example. The community needs to embrace the ideas that everyone has the right to participate. (Government official) Mainly running ‘come and try’ day, visiting schools and taking cricket clinic and I also work with the cricket clubs across Gippsland to foster their interest and support for No Boundaries Cricket. (Sports manager) When an arts organization gets together with someone like Scope and a local government or we get together with Office for Disability – and DHS, the partnerships of organizations that come together seem to work well. (Aboriginal arts manager) Champion are those people who believe in social action and human rights principles. (Government official) One person is incredibly passionate in Anglesea, but she herself has cancer and it came up and down and she ended up having to withdraw but there were thing that she did to actually establish things because of her knowledge of people in the community. (Arts manager)

25

22

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

Lessons from Community Organizations abilities in relation to the five community-oriented dimensions from our data: (1) non-minority specific communal activities; (2) listening to minority voices; (3) multidimensional accessibility; (4) cross-boundary networks and collaborations; and (5) availability of organizational and natural champions. The first three dimensions were reported by all participants. The fourth and fifth dimensions were reported by managers and government officials only. We consider that managers and government officials, being in a position of authority, could identify those dimensions readily, reflecting organizational and industrywide structural aspects of community inclusion. Non-minority-specific communal activities. Managers and government officials affiliated with arts and sports activities reported community activities and programmes as ways to enable people with disabilities to participate in community settings, more so than disability-specific programmes (e.g. people with disabilities only theatrical activities). Comments from the interviewees reinforce the notion of shared values in the arts by engaging with creative communities in order to strengthen the economy through arts participation (Arts Victoria, 2002). One government official for minority rural access explained the importance of community activities as ‘a nonthreatening atmosphere to bring people with disabilities and people without disabilities together, to try to break down stereotypical barriers’. One spectator and one athlete with disabilities shared with us their roles as ‘being involved in setting-up scoring, reports for local papers, a bit of umpiring, canteen, marking the ground’. An arts development officer mentioned festival participation as ‘for everyone . . . : rather than just people with disabilities. I think that is an important learning process in itself’. A rural access worker from a government department mentioned the power of common interests ‘tap[ping] into connection between people based on the love of the activity (i.e. running, basketball, singing)’. This view is extended by a regional arts marketing manager, who explained that their festival ‘is about the able-bodied working with the mentally and physically challenged to make sure that they have the same opportunities’. Similar views were proffered by a sports manager telling us: ‘In country towns, sport brings people together. We like to think of ourselves as being a welcoming club, part of the

527 local community’. The arts policy, Creative Capacity+ Arts for All Victorians, supported the interviewees’ comments stating that arts is a key conduit for an inclusive society, expanding opportunities for all Victorians, especially for underrepresented groups. The stated strategies of engaging creative communities, building creative industries, creating place and space and developing artists, ideas and knowledge indicate that shared values develop a creative community and strengthen the economy through participation (Arts Victoria, 2002). Filtering of views to community members illustrates the diffusion of key management notions to communal activities and readiness to accept change. While not new as a notion, it is indicative of community readiness for working differently that may have wider implications for inclusion for the private sector. Listening to minority voices. This dimension of listening to minority voices was identified both by interviewees and in reports as important for people with disabilities. Accessible Arts (1999) recommends early consultation with audiences of disabilities as essential for their inclusion. This view is reiterated by arts audiences with disabilities, who told us: ‘Listening to the needs of people with disabilities and trying to accommodate them is understandable. It may not be practical at times. But the arts have made a big effort so far.’ Such views were shared by others as follows: The goal should be around making services more welcoming and comfortable for [all] people. [Female officer with a disability, mental health branch in a government department, middle years] It’s about looking out for people, listening to them. If they [people with disabilities] are unhappy then there’s obviously a reason for it. Listen to our community. [Male sports manager for athletes with disabilities, early 30s]

Some athletes with disabilities shared their desire for ‘more publicity, wider spectators at special events, not just family’, and to ‘get out positive stories about people with disabilities’, sharing dilemmas such as ‘you see stuff about the Paralympics but lots of other people with disabilities play sport and nobody knows’. These comments indicate the value that people with disabilities interviewees place on active listening as a way of informing society about their presence and activities.

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

528

Y. Fujimoto et al.

Multidimensional accessibility. Access is not only physical, but also virtual, informational and attitudinal. One female arts manager with a disability, under 40 years, working for an arts access agency told us about the importance of information in different forms: ‘They all have different perceptions of what access is and different ways of achieving it . . . That’s number one: have the information readily available. If you’re deaf, you might need a teletypewriter phone system.’ A male government official in his middle years from the arts funding body extended our understanding of access to virtual and physical place and space: Creating place and space includes the physical infrastructure of buildings. Ensure there’s physical access. Have a new website design ensuring that the website is accessible. We’re revamping our website, ensuring it’s accessible, that the text is clear, that there’s audio equipment available.

A variety of communication channels may include information communication technology (e.g. websites, teletypewriter), brochures, posters and word of mouth. Further, community sports organizations modify rules to assist people with disabilities to play sports with people without disabilities. Modified communal activities ensure that people with disabilities can interact with people without disabilities in an informal setting. One sports manager in his middle years at No Boundaries Cricket told us: We have modified the rules so that everyone with a disability is able to participate. That might mean changes in the way in which people can bat, bowl, score to meet individual needs. We provide specialist coaching and training, to teach the rules and develop skills. We are developing a state-wide carnival for people of all abilities. Local clubs host and mentor teams as part of their range of juniors through to seniors; it is just another team. People with disabilities are also given roles within the club.

Modification of informal activities such as this is a notable process of inclusion, which is beyond formal procedures such as rehabilitation and welfare programmes. Access was further explained by people with disabilities as treatment received from others. Their views were mirrored by a report from Accessible Arts, which states that ‘people with disabilities often point to negative attitudes from

staff as being far more significant barriers than the physical’ (Accessible Arts, 1999, p. 18). For example, people with disabilities audiences explained the need to maintain dignity by being treated equally by friendly and helpful staff: ‘Don’t look at people with disabilities differently . . . It’s appalling how the security people watch you closely. It’s offensive and snobby [audience with a disability].’ Further athletes with disabilities mentioned ‘Whatever they try to do in reporting, there’s always that tag on the end: “for a person with a disability” ’ and ‘I want to be regarded as a good netballer, not as a good netballer with a disability.’ In short, people with disabilities informed us that enhancing respect and dignity towards them requires more organizational effort on information giving, modification of informal activities and education about attitudinal access. The three dimensions of non-minority-specific communal activities; listening to minority voices and multiple access of community organizations were reported by all interviewees. These dimensions may infer implications for extending structural dimensions of people with disabilities inclusion in the private sector. Cross-boundary networks and collaborations. Managers and government officials reported that cross-boundary networks and collaborations are a necessary sociological process for breaking social homogeneity. A female arts manager for a theatre for people with disabilities shared the value of networks and collaborations as a means of creating greater inclusion in organizations and society: The theatre [for people with disabilities] is a model of inclusion with the involvement of collaborators. Top level collaborators and actors without disabilities are part of it for those shows. Where I see it as a model of inclusion is that people from the arts are included in the work of the theatre. People from it experience integration and inclusion in the community as actors and everything that comes with that. (Arts manager, middle years)

One male manager in his middle years from the arts funding body also shared stories about collaborations with inclusive organizations and people with disabilities: We’ve improved our relationships on a range of access and policy development areas, and also peak

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

Lessons from Community Organizations body organizations. We’ve worked with them to support increasing access programmes and professional development programmes with people with disabilities. There’s quite a legacy.

These accounts tell us that cross-boundary networks and collaborations facilitate communal sharing in the midst of diversity, enhancing and promoting inclusion in organizations and society. Champions: organizational and natural. The fifth dimension includes (a) organizational and (b) natural champions who support minorities and advocate for their cause. A younger, male leisure development officer told us: I see what people can do. Regional disability cricket started because someone with a disability, who loved cricket, asked why he could not play and threw out the challenge to develop the game so that people with disabilities could play.

He became a people with disabilities champion. Natural champions can be volunteers, as was this case for inclusive cricket. An older, male officer with a disability for disability in a government department mentioned that they ‘Look for individuals and organizations to become leaders in inclusion. Local papers will write positive stories about people with disabilities. It’s about leadership.’ One younger, male regional arts manager from a performing arts centre mentioned: You need the right people who can contact people on the ground. We had a volunteer who put in an intense amount of work. She was from the area. She would ring up people and organize all the local businesses, send out Christmas presents and Christmas cakes and so on.

The interviewees reported that organizational champions at a senior level are required to support natural champions. One older, female executive from the disability network said if a [natural] champion leaves, then the programme falls apart. There is a risk that it becomes about the champion. You need to ensure that inclusion is embedded in the organization. You need to create ownership of the programme within the club.

Interviewees perceive that diversity inclusion functions more effectively with cooperation of natural and organizational champions. Leadership as part of creating an inclusive community, whether in work or non-work settings, is a notion

529 that has permeated our findings and has implications for private organizations.

Discussion We studied disability inclusion from the outside in, focusing on community first and organizational diversity second. We explored an inclusion process of people with disabilities through arts and sports community organizations based upon Vaisey’s community theory. Supporting Vaisey’s theory, we found that community inclusion is focused primarily on shared values within the social world, while also being outwardly and behaviourally focused. This finding is in contrast to much of the disability inclusion literature, which often focuses on remedial work accommodation and treatment approaches to people with disabilities (e.g. Campolieti, 2009; Gray et al., 2007; Stone and Colella, 1996). Further, our community perspective differs from current minority inclusion efforts, which tend to focus on HR policies and practices. As our study examined the perceptions of people with and without disabilities, we believe that the definition of inclusion identified from our research does have implications for the inclusion of other minorities. We also believe that the process followed in identifying this definition provides a useful model for studying other types of diversity, such as gender, ethnic and sexual orientation. In so doing, further insight can be gleaned into the similarities and differences in perceptions of inclusion associated with different disadvantaged groups. The arts and sports community organizations established five dimensions of inclusion based upon their community-oriented values, goals and strategies, as a means of linking disability and inclusion. This approach conforms with recommendations in recent disability inclusion literature to take a holistic social and environmental approach to people with disabilities inclusion (Barnes and Mercer 2005; Hammel et al., 2008). Community-oriented inclusion is also supported by the contact hypothesis, which states that more frequent interactions between minority and majority group members can yield greater understanding, overcoming prejudices and stereotypes (Allport, 1954). Our findings also support the concepts of social capital and networking, which identify participation and social relation-

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

530

Y. Fujimoto et al. Social Inclusion Inclusive society benefits all regardless of difference by expanding employment opportunities and closing social divisions

Community Inclusion Framework Community-oriented core values, goals and strategies enhance individual sense of participation, involvement and access to activities so that people from different social groups feel accepted and included within organizations and society 1. Non minorityspecific communal activities

Community approach to managing disability diversity

5. Cross-boundary networks and collaborations

2. Listening to minority voices

Social Inclusion:

Common interest activities (e.g. arts and sports)

3. Availability of organizational and natural champions

• Greater inclusion •

within organizations and society Greater co-creation of new ideas amongst all ability groups

4.Physical, informational, virtual relational and attitudinal accessibility

Figure 1. Community-oriented inclusion framework

ships as enabling individuals to ‘claim access to [privileged] resources’ (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 249) and develop a greater sense of ‘we’ in the midst of diversity (Pitts, 2009; Portes, 1998; Terrion and Ashforth, 2002). The notion of human capital accumulation is also supported by our findings, opening opportunities for leveraging diverse skills, abilities and judgement (Richard, 2000). Previous studies of community within the organizational context confirm that structural community activities, such as lunch gatherings, generous listening (Hazen, 2003), talent shows, birthday parties (Blatt and Camden, 2006) and laughing together (Terrion and Ashforth, 2002), enhance employees’ sense of belonging to work groups and organizations. Interpreted from Vaisey’s perspective, structural activities support substantive community ideas and culture, and assist people to share a common organizational identity (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003). Our findings thus extend previous literature pertaining to community inclusion by elaborating on the ‘nature of contacts’, highlighting common interest activities and identifying five structural dimensions that facilitate inclusion of those activities. Our Community-oriented Inclusion Framework portrays a community approach to manag-

ing disability diversity as being underpinned by common interest activities (shown in the centre of the ellipse in Figure 1). The five boxes around the inner ellipse are composed of the five dimensions, reflecting people with disabilities inclusion. Social disability, community theory and social identity theory are embedded in the framework, represented by the two ellipses. The figure, which represents community inclusion for organizations in an inclusive society, has implications for private organizations. In particular, more inclusive private organizations can be created using substantive and structural community approaches to engage their own communities of influence, both inside and outside the organization. The five dimensions of inclusion contribute to the existing disability literature by emphasizing: (1) non-minority-specific activities; (2) listening to minority voices; (3) multidimensional accessibility; (4) organizational and natural champions; and (5) cross-boundary networks and collaborations, all of which are centred on common interest activities. First, non-minority-specific activities promote inclusion by enhancing the we-feeling of participants. This practice is therefore relevant for minority groups. Second, listening to minority voices is a

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

Lessons from Community Organizations critical path to understanding needs and providing assistance, particularly for people with disabilities (Kulkarni, 2012). This practice welcomes minority groups as part of organizational practice, heeding their specific needs for ease of social interaction. Third, multidimensional access entails modifying tangible and intangible spaces and places to welcome everyone, including people with disabilities. Disability management recognizes work modification for people with disabilities (e.g. Gate, 2000). We argue, however, that attention to informal activities ensures that people with disabilities are not physically ostracized in informal social settings. To date, people with disabilities research in the workplace recognizes tasks, but there is less research on informal interaction for people with disabilities compared with employees without disabilities (e.g. Kulkarni and Lengnick-Hall, 2011; Mclaughlin, Bell and Stringer, 2004). While physical access is not relevant to other minority groups (e.g. racial, ethnic and sexual minorities), our study suggests that virtual, informational and attitudinal access is transferable to other minority groups. For example, attitudinal access can be available to minority groups, promoted through company websites. Fourth, cross-boundary networks and collaborations were identified as supporting dense social networks among organizations (Putnam, 1993; Southerton, 2002). However, production of social resources often rests on social homogeneity, requiring boundary crossing and greater mobility of social groups to draw diverse people closer together. Therefore, networks and collaborations through communal activities, regardless of different demographic attributes, create boundarycrossing opportunities for people of all abilities and demographics. Networks based upon communal activities (in organizations and society) may in turn create a web of inclusive social attitudes, institutional structures and policies in organizations and society (cf. Gordon and Rosenblum, 2001). This finding supports and extends Vaisey’s (2007) work, showing that ‘we-feeling’ was not developed in a context of demographic similarity, but in common interest activities in the midst of diversity. Further, organizations may also collaborate with minority peak bodies to enhance inclusion of minority groups. Fifth, the notion of champion is recognized as an important factor for increasing work performance in leadership and change management

531 (Buchanan et al., 2005; Elkins and Keller, 2003). Natural champions constitute influential individuals inside or outside the organization, not formally assigned, who are prepared to support people with disabilities and influence others to support them. The concept of natural champions extends the diversity management literature, which typically focuses on the importance of organizational champions (Cox and Blake, 1991; Ely and Thomas, 2001; Gilbert and Ivancevich, 2000). Our contribution to theory is twofold. First, a recurring theme in this study is that inclusion needs to be defined more widely, taking into account sociological community approaches that can be applied to diversity inclusion. Our study of inclusive community organizations suggests that the internal focus found traditionally in the diversity management literature is too narrow and is insufficient to meet the needs of minority members in society, with widening gaps between the privileged and the less privileged. Diversity and disability management literature emphasizes HR policies, practices and leadership rather than specific employee orientations and behaviours that encourage inclusion of minorities (Campolieti, 2009; Cox and Beale, 1997; Shen et al., 2009).. Second, we listened to stakeholder voices of community organizations, including the voices of people with disabilities. They informed us that greater inclusion occurs by spanning boundaries of social groups and organizations. Spanning boundaries through common interests, social groups and organizations may develop community oriented values and norms, which in turn provide more opportunities for greater information sharing, new ideas and innovation for organizational and societal growth (e.g. Roberge and van Dick, 2010; Van der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005). Our boundary-spanning framework takes a wider and communityoriented approach to inclusion, thus informing workforce diversity and disability literature with new approaches to creating more inclusive organizations.

Managerial implications for private organizations and society The study has managerial implications for disability and diversity management in private organiza-

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

532

Y. Fujimoto et al.

tions and society. The traditional organizational approach to minority inclusion has taken a minority-specific approach, such as establishing rehabilitation programmes, indigenous coordinators, disability-specific work accommodation, minority-specific councils and special efforts to recruit minority members (e.g. Colella and Stone, 2005; Mor Barak and Cherin, 1998). Although these efforts are necessary to enhance minority inclusion in organizations, diversity research has indicated a potential backlash against the minority-specific approach to managing diversity (Colella, Paetzold and Belliveau, 2004; Kidder et al., 2004; Lorbiecki and Jack, 2000). For instance, people with disabilities assistance with work accommodation is sometimes considered unfair (Paetzold et al., 2008), while affirmative action policies may be seen as favouritism for certain social groups (Shteynberg et al., 2011). Therefore, our results propose that non-minority common interest activities may produce a more mutually inclusive approach to minority and majority members, where they can interact based upon their shared interests in a non-compulsory setting. Creating a series of common interest activities, where employees from diverse backgrounds can easily feel part of selected groups, may be more effective for creating inclusive organizations. This study demonstrated that community-oriented inclusion means more than adhering to legal mandates and internal HR functions, which cascade down from the strategic direction of organizations underpinned by the value put on work productivity (Cox and Beale, 1997; Kossek and Lobel, 1996). Creation of more common interest activities may provide more authentic social interactions between diverse members, which over time may develop greater shared identity and production of new perspectives for organizational growth (cf. Blatt and Camden, 2006). In a work context, common interest functions may be translated into various work-related team projects that are shared among diverse employees. For example, problem-solving groups can be established, drawing together diverse employees with a common passion to solve particular business problems (e.g. improvement of operational processes, dealing with workplace bullying or reducing product faults), thus creating new ideas for improving work group or organizational effectiveness. Those groups can be initiated by

natural champions informally, and, if momentum grows, ideas can be formalized by work units. Informal social groups may include football after work hours, craft-making sessions during lunch breaks or learning new languages once a fortnight on Friday afternoons, to name a few. Although these are non-work-related activities, we propose that multiple common interest activities – initiated by any employees or natural champions – will provide contact opportunities for minority and majority members to share their work and non-work lives, thereby creating time and space to overcome in-group and out-group categories. These activities may infuse work effectiveness through creation of shared social identity. By having organizational norms that encourage common interest work or non-work activities and more contacts in the midst of diversity (Allport, 1954), we propose that people without disability or a majority group may overcome negative attitudes and stereotypes towards people with disabilities and other minority groups (cf. Rink and Ellemers, 2007). Through organizational provision of communal opportunities for interaction inside or outside work settings, a common identity can be developed to foster information sharing and work productivity (e.g. Roberge and van Dick, 2010). In particular, inclusion of people with disabilities in the work context through co-workers’ inclusive attitudes and social interaction is said to provide more ‘information, resources and opportunities in organizations’ (Kulkarni, 2012, p. 83). While there is a greater recognition of the significant contribution that people with disabilities can make to national economies, the suggested community perspective and approach to their inclusion makes social and economic sense, strengthening organizational and societal performance (International Labour Office, 2012; Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt and Kulkarni, 2008).

Limitations and future research This study contributes to debates on community and inclusion perspectives, extending Vaisey’s theory. The study is based on a community grounded in time and place, meaning that the results are not necessarily generalizable. This study is qualitative, with a purposive sample used to examine the inclusion from the perspectives of

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

Lessons from Community Organizations stakeholders of arts and sports community organizations. Therefore, we can only discuss lessons learned in a community sector with implications for the private sector. Future research could explore the proposed framework in private organizations. This study represented a component of engagement with people with disabilities by including them in our diversity inclusion research, something often overlooked. There is the opportunity for future research to apply some of these findings to other minorities who ‘tend to be grounded with structures of power inequities and unequal access to resources’ (Nkomo, 1995, p. 248). There are several limitations to this study. First, the study is qualitative, with a purposive sample used to examine the inclusion of people with disabilities by mainstreaming their participation through communal involvement of arts and sports community organizations. We recognize that this approach limits the generalizability of findings to other sectors. Therefore, we can only discuss lessons learned in a community sector with implications for the private sector. Future research could explore the proposed framework in private organizations. Second, we acknowledge that the findings are not fully applicable to other minority groups. Disability is a specific construct (Bell, 2007). Therefore, there are specific inclusion dimensions for other minorities, not identified by this study. For example, name access may be a dimension required for racial and ethnic minorities, who tend to be discriminated on that basis (Fryer and Levitt, 2004). Declared access may be more necessary for sexual orientation minorities who experience discrimination on the basis of disclosure (Ragins and Cornwell, 2001). For other minority groups, physical access may not be an issue. as health and mobility will not affect their inclusion. However, physical access for people with disabilities, nevertheless, contributes to a climate that includes people with physical impairments. Third, the context of Australian arts and sports organizations may be seen as a limitation in a global setting. Nevertheless, arts and sports activities operate globally from community to elite professional levels, with pathways from one level to the next, making this study internationally applicable. For example, cricket is played at the community level (through clubs), as well as at state,

533 national and international levels, although not in all countries. Community activity is exemplified by arts and sports sectors as one way of creating shared identity (Kay 2000; Kellett, Hede and Chalip, 2008). We acknowledge that marginalized people with disabilities in organizations and society are compounded by gender, age, race and economic status (Hammel et al., 2008). We collected foundational data in this domain. Future research is necessary to examine how people with disabilities inclusion can be articulated through multiple ideologies and pathways. Finally, although data emerged on five dimensions of inclusion in community settings, further research may enrich our findings. We do not claim that the five dimensions are all new to the disability and diversity inclusion literature. Nevertheless, this paper extends the concept of organizational inclusion from a community perspective and offers a community approach to creating more inclusive organizations.

Conclusion Human resource policies and practices, with their internal focus, have not progressed organizational inclusion and fairness in the way intended. In response, we investigated community perspectives of inclusion through arts and sports activities, applying Vaisey’s community framework. Interviewing people with and without disabilities, we extended Vaisey’s framework, providing a fresh approach to developing organizational inclusion. The inclusion of people with disabilities and other minorities is a topic that requires greater attention from organizations and society. Nonetheless, inclusion remains challenging to prevailing notions of co-participation in the mainstream. The way forward entails developing theoretical constructs that embody voices of minorities alongside majority. This is the approach we took in this study. The extension of the notion of inclusion to a community-oriented definition and analysis in arts and sport provides one attempt to challenge the foundations of workforce inequality, unfairness and exclusion in organizations and society.

References Abberley, P. (1987). ‘The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability’, Disability, Handicap and Society, 2, pp. 5–19.

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

534

Y. Fujimoto et al.

Accessible Arts (1999). Access to All Areas: Guidelines for Marketing the Arts to People with Disabilities. Victoria: Arts Council. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge. MA: Perseus Books. Arts Victoria (2002). Creative Capacity+ Arts for all Victorians. Melbourne: Arts Victoria. Australia Council (2005). Making the Journey: Arts and Disability in Australia. Available at http://www.australiacouncil .gov.au/publications/disability_and_the_arts/making_the _journey_arts_and_disability_in_australia [accessed 11 November 2009]. Avery, D. R., P. F. McKay, D. C. Wilson and S. Volpone (2008). ‘Attenuating the effect of seniority on intent to remain: the role of perceived inclusiveness’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA. Baldridge, D. and J. Veiga (2001). ‘Toward a greater understanding of the willingness to request an accommodation: can requesters beliefs disable the Americans with Disabilities Act?’, Academy of Management Review, 26, pp. 85–99. Baldridge, D. and J. Veiga (2006). ‘The impact of anticipated social consequences on recurring disability accommodation requests’, Journal of Management, 32, pp. 158–179. Barnes, C. and G. Mercer (2005). ‘Disability, work and welfare: challenging the social exclusion of disabled people’, Work, Employment and Society, 19, pp. 527–545. Barnes, C., M. Oliver and L. Barton (2002). ‘Introduction’. In C. Barnes, M. Oliver and L. Barton (eds), Disability Studies Today, pp. 1–17. Cambridge: Blackwell. Bell, M. P. (2007). Diversity in Organizations. Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage. Bell, M. P., M. F. Özbilgin, A. T. Beauregard and O Sürgevill (2011). ‘Voice, silence, and diversity in 21st century organizations: strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees’, Human Resource Management, 50, pp. 131–146. Bernard, R. (1996). ‘Qualitative data, quantitative analysis’, Cultural Anthropology Methods Journal, 8, pp. 9–11. Bilimoria, D., S. Joy and X. Liang (2008). ‘Breaking barriers and creating inclusive-ness: lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering’, Human Resource Management, 47, pp. 423–441. Blatt, R. and C. T. Camden (2006). ‘Positive relationships and cultivating community’. In J. E. Dutton and B. R. Ragins (eds), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation, pp. 243–264. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bourdieu, P. (1986). ‘The forms of capital’. In J. G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, pp. 241–258. New York, NY: Greenwood. Brint, S. (2001). ‘Gemeinschaft revisited: a critique and reconstruction of the community concept’, Sociological Theory, 19, pp. 1–23 Bruyère, S. and P. James (1997). ‘Disability management and the Disability Discrimination Act’ Human Resource Management Journal, 7, pp. 5–17. Buchanan, D., L. Fitzgerald, D. Ketley, R. Gollop., J. L. Jones, S. L. Lamont, A. Neath and E. Whitby (2005). ‘No going back: a review of the literature on sustaining organizational change’, International Journal of Management Review, 7, pp. 189–205.

Buckup, S. (2009) The Price of Exclusion: the Economic Consequences of Excluding People with Disabilities from the World of Work. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Campolieti, M. (2009). ‘Work adaptation and the desire for accommodations after the onset of a disability’, Industrial Relations, 48, pp. 329–349. Community Access Unit (2012). Access for All Abilities, Sport and Recreation Victoria. Available at http://www.dpcd.vic. gov.au/sport/inclusive-sport/Access-For-All-Abilities [accessed 10 July 2012]. Casey (2012) ‘What is the role of the inclusion support agency?’ Available at http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/ childrenwithadditionalneeds/article.asp?Item=5069 [accessed 12 July 2012]. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). ‘A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance’, Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 92–117. Colella, A. (2001). ‘Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities’, Academy of Management Review, 26, pp. 100–116. Colella, A. and D. L. Stone (2005). ‘Workplace discrimination toward persons with disabilities: a call for some new research directions’. In R. L. Diploye and A. Colella (eds), Discrimination at Work: the Psychological and Organizational Bases, pp. 227–253. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colella, A., R. Paetzold and M. Belliveau (2004). ‘Factors affecting coworkers’ procedural justice inferences of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities’, Personnel Psychology, 57, pp. 1–23. Coleman, J. S. (1988). ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, American Journal of Sociology, pp. S95–S120. Cox, T. H. and S. Blake (1991). ‘Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness’, Academy of Management Executive, 5, pp. 45–56. Cox, T. H. and R. L. Beale (1997). Developing Competency to Manage Diversity. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Cricket Victoria (2012). All Abilities Cricket. Available at http:// www.cricketvictoria.com.au/page/all_abilities_cricket.html [accessed 2 May 2012]. Disability Services Division (2002). Victorian State Disability Plan 2002–2012. Melbourne: Disability Services Division, Victorian Department of Human Services. Elkins, T. and R. T. Keller (2003). ‘Leadership in research and development organizations: a literature review and conceptual framework’, Leadership Quarterly, pp. 587–606 Ely, R. J. and D. A. Thomas (2001). ‘Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspective on work group processes and outcomes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, pp. 229– 273. Etzioni, A. (2001). ‘Is bowling together sociologically lite?’ Contemporary Sociology, 30, pp. 223–24. Farrell, P. (2000). ‘The impact of research on developments in inclusive education’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4, pp. 153–162 Ferdman, B. M. (2003). ‘Key principles for building diversity and inclusion’, The California Psychologist, 36, pp. 11–12. Florey, A. and D. Harrison (2000). ‘Responses to informal accommodation requests from employees with disabilities: multistudy evidence on willingness to comply’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 224–233. Flynn, F. J. (2005). ‘Having an open mind: the impact of openness to experience on inter-racial attitudes and impression

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

Lessons from Community Organizations formation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, pp. 816–826. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Fryer, R. G. and S. D. Levitt (2004). ‘The causes and consequences of distinctively black names’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, pp. 767–804. Gate, L. B. (2000). ‘Work accommodation as a social process’, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 10, pp. 85–98. Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology, 6th edn. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gilbert, J. A. and J. M. Ivancevich (2000). ‘Valuing diversity: a tale of two organizations’, Academy of Management Executive, 24, pp. 93–105. Gordon, B. O. and K. E. Rosenblum (2001). ‘Bringing disability into the sociological frame: a comparison of disability with race, sex, and sexual orientation statuses’, Disability and Society, 16, pp. 5–19. Gray, M., T. Kurihara, L. Hommen and J. Feldman (2007). ‘Networks of exclusion: job segmentation and gendered social networks in the knowledge economy’, Equal Opportunities International, 26, pp. 144–161. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78, pp. 1360–1380. Hammel, J., S. Magasi, A. Heinemann, G. Whiteneck, J. Bogner and E. Rodriguez (2008). ‘What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities’, Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, pp. 1445–1460. Harlan, S. and P. Robert (1998). ‘The social construction of disability in organizations: why employers resist reasonable accommodation’, Work and Occupations: An International Sociological Journal, 25, pp. 397–435. Hazen, M. A. (2003). ‘Societal and workplace responses to perinatal loss: disenfranchised grief or healing connection’, Human Relations, 56, pp. 147–166. Horwitz, F. M., A. Bowmaker-Falconer and P. Searll (1996). ‘Human resource development and managing diversity in South Africa’, International Journal of Manpower, 17, pp. 134–151. Hunt, C. S. and B. Hunt (2004). ‘Changing attitudes toward PWD: experimenting with an educational intervention’, Journal of Management, 16, pp. 266–281. International Labour Office (2007). Equality at Work: Tackling the Challenges, Global Report Under the Follow-Up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Geneva: International Labour Office. International Labour Office (2012). Disability Discrimination at Work. Geneva: International Labour Office. Jones, G. E. (1997). ‘Advancement of opportunity issues for persons with disabilities’, Human Resource Management Review, 7, pp. 55–76. Kalev, A., F. Dobbin and E. Kelly (2006). ‘Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmation action and diversity policies’, American Sociological Review, 71, pp. 589–617. Kay, A. (2000). ‘Art and community development: the role the arts have in regenerating communities’, Community Development Journal, 35, pp. 414–424. Kellett, P., A. Hede and L. Chalip (2008). ‘Social policy for sport events: leveraging (relationships with) teams from other nations for community benefit’, European Sport Management Quarterly, 8, pp. 101–121.

535 Kidder, D. L., M. J. Lankau, D. Chrobot-Mason, K. A. Mollica and R. A. Friedman (2004). ‘Backlash toward diversity initiatives: examining the impact of diversity program justification, personal and group outcomes’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, pp. 77–102. Klimoski, R. and L. Donahue (1997). ‘HR strategies for integrating individuals with disabilities into the work place’, Human Resource Management Review, 7, pp. 109–138. Kossek, E. E. and S. A. Lobel (1996). Managing Diversity: Human Resource Strategies for Transforming the Work Place. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: an Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kulkarni, M. (2012). ‘Contextual factors and seeking behaviors of people with disabilities’, Human Resource Development Review, 11, pp. 77–96. Kulkarni, M. and M. L. Lengnick-Hall (2011). ‘Socialization of people with disabilities in the workplace’, Human Resource Management, 50, pp. 521–540. Lengnick-Hall, M. L., P. M. Gaunt and M. Kulkarni (2008). ‘Overlooked and underutilized: people with disabilities are an untapped human resource’, Human Resource Management, 47, pp. 255–273. Lignugaris-Kraft, B., C. L. Salzberg, S. Rule and J. J. Stowitschek, (1988). ‘Social-vocational skills of workers with and without mental retardation in two community employment sites’, Mental Retardation, 26, pp. 297–305. Linnehan, F. and A. M. Konrad (1999). ‘Diluting diversity: implications for intergroup inequality in organizations’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 8, pp. 399–414. Lirio, P., M. D. Lee, M. L. Williams, L. K. Haugen and E. E. Kossek (2008). ‘The inclusion challenge within reduced load professionals: the role of the manager’, Human Resource Management, 47, pp. 443–461. Lopez, S., R. Hodson and V. Roscigno (2009). ‘Power, status and abuse at work: general and sexual harassment compared’, Sociological Quarterly, 50, pp. 3–27. Lorbiecki, A. and G. Jack (2000). ‘Critical turns in the evolution of diversity management’, British Journal of Management, 11, pp. 17–32. Loury, G. C. (1977). ‘A dynamic theory of racial income differences’. In P. A. Wallace and A. M. LaMonde (eds), Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination, pp. 153–186. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books Marquis, C. and J. Battilana (2009). ‘Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, pp. 283–302. McLaughlin, M. E., M. P. Bell and D. Y. Stringer (2004). ‘Stigma and acceptance of persons with disabilities’. Group and Organization Management, 29, pp. 302–333. McPherson, J. M. and T. Rotolo (1996). ‘Testing a dynamic model of social composition diversity and change in voluntary groups’, American Sociological Review, 61, pp. 179–202 Metz, I. and C. Kulik (2008). ‘Making public organizations more inclusive: a case study of the Victoria police force’, Human Resource Management, 47, pp. 369–387. Miles, M. and M. Huberman (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mor Barak, M. E. (2010). Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

536

Y. Fujimoto et al.

Mor Barak, M. E. and D. A. Cherin (1998). ‘A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: exploring a measure of inclusion–exclusion’, Administration in Social Work, 22, pp. 47–64. Mulroy, E. A. and S. Shay (1997). ‘Non-profit organizations and innovation: a model of neighborhood-based collaboration to prevent child maltreatment’, Social Work, 42, pp. 515–524. Nahapiet, J. and S. Ghoshal (1998). ‘Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage’, Academy of Management Review, 23, pp. 242–266. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Nishii, H. L. (2012). ‘The benefits of climate for inclusion for diverse groups’, Academy of Management Journal, doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0823. Nkomo, S. M. (1995). ‘Identities and the complexity of diversity’. In S. E. Jackson and M. N. Ruderman (eds), Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace, pp. 247–253. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Northway, R. (1997). ‘Integration and inclusion: illusion or progress in services for disabled people?’ Social Policy and Administration, 31, pp. 157–172 Özbilgin, M. (2009). ‘Equality, diversity and inclusion at work: yesterday, today and tomorrow’. In M. Özbilgin (ed.), Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Work: a Research Companion, pp.1–13 Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Paetzold, R. L., M. F. Garcia, A. Colella, L. Run Ren, M. Triana and M. Ziebro (2008). ‘Perceptions of people with disabilities: when is accommodation fair?’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, pp. 27–35. Pelled, L. H., G. E. Ledford and S. A. Mohrman (1999). ‘Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion’, Journal of Management Studies, 36, pp. 1013–1031. Pitts, D. (2009). ‘Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: evidence from U.S. federal agencies’, Public Administration Review, March/April, pp. 328–338. Plowman, D. A, L. T. Baker, T. E. Beck, M. Kulkarni, S. T. Solansky and D. V. Travis (2007). ‘Radical change accidentally: the emergence and amplification of small change’, Academy of Management Journal, 50, pp. 515–543. Portes, A. (1998). ‘Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, pp. 1–24. Pratt, M. G. and B. E. Ashforth (2003). ‘Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work’. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton and R. E. Quinn (eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, pp. 309–327. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Putnam, R. D. (1993). ‘The prosperous community: social capital and public life’, American Prospect, 13, pp. 35–42. Putnam, R. D. (1995). ‘Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital’, Journal of Democracy, 6, pp. 65–78. Ragins, B. R. and J. M. Cornwell (2001). ‘Pink triangles: antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, pp. 1244–1261. Ragins, B. R., J. Gonzalez., K. Ehrhardt and R. Singh (2012). ‘Crossing the threshold: the spillover of community racial diversity and climate to the workplace’, Personnel Psychology, 65, pp. 755–787. Richard, O. C. (2000). ‘Racial diversity, business strategy and firm performance: a resource-based view’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 164–177.

Rink, F. and N. Ellemers (2007). ‘Diversity as a basis for shared organizational identity: the norm congruity principle’, British Journal of Management, 18, pp. 17–27. Roberge, M. É. and R. van Dick (2010). ‘Recognizing the benefits of diversity: when and how does diversity increase group performance?’, Human Resource Management Review, 20, pp. 295–308. Roberson, Q. M. (2006). ‘Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations’, Group and Organizational Management, 31, pp. 212–236. Robinson, G. and K. Dechant (1997). ‘Building a business case for diversity’, Academy of Management Executive, 11, pp. 21–31. Sanchez, J. I. and P. Brock (1995). ‘Outcomes of perceived discrimination amongst Hispanic employees: is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?’, Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp. 704–719. Sandel, M. J. (1996). Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schur, L., D. Kruse, J. Blasi and P. Blanck (2009). ‘Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture’, Industrial Relations, 48, pp. 381–410. Secker, J., S. Hacking, L. Kent, J. Shenton and H. Spandler (2009). ‘Development of a measure of social inclusion for arts and mental health project participants’, Journal of Mental Health, 18, pp. 65–72. Shen, J., A. Chanda, B. D’Netto and M. Monga (2009). ‘Managing diversity through human resource management: an international perspective and conceptual framework’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, pp. 235–251 Shore, L. M., A. E. Randel, B. G. Chung, M. A. Dean, K. H. Ehrhart and G. Singh (2010). ‘Inclusion and diversity in work groups: a review and model for future research’, Journal of Management, 37, pp. 1262–1289. Shteynberg, G., L. M. Leslie, A. P. Knight and D. M. Mayer (2011). ‘But affirmative action hurts us! Race related beliefs shape perceptions of white disadvantage and policy unfairness’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, pp.1–12. Southerton, D. (2002). ‘Boundaries of “us” and “them”: class, mobility and identification in a new town’, Sociology, 36, pp. 171–193. Sport and Recreation Victoria (2006). Sport and Recreation Victoria: Evaluation for Access for All Abilities. Melboune: Sport and Recreation Victoria Department of Victorian Communities. Stone, D. and A. Colella (1996). ‘A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organization’, Academy of Management Review, 21, pp. 352−401. Syed, J. and R. Kramar (2009). ‘Socially responsible diversity management’, Journal of Management and Organization, 15, pp. 639–651. Swimming Victoria (2012). Swimming for People with Disability. Victoria: Swimming Victoria. Tajfel, H. (1974). ‘Social identity and intergroup behaviour’, Social Science Information, 13, pp. 65–93. Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner (1986). ‘The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour’. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.

Lessons from Community Organizations Tajfel, H., M. Billig, R. P. Bundy and C. Flament (1971). ‘Social categorization and intergroup behaviour’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, pp. 149–177. Taylor, C. (2003). Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Tatli, A. (2011). ‘A multi-layered exploration of the diversity management field: diversity discourses, practices and practitioners in the UK’, British Journal of Management, 22, pp. 238–253. Terrion, J. L. and B. E. Ashforth (2002). ‘From “I” to “we”: the role of putdown humor and identity in the development of a temporary group’, Human Relations, pp. 55–87. Tönnies, F. [1897](1988). Community and Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. United Nations (2012) ‘Sport for development and peace: the UN system in action’. Available at http://www.un.org/wcm/ content/site/sport/home/unplayers/memberstates/pid/14319 [accessed 11 November 2012]. UNESCO (2003) UNESCO Declaration on the Principles on Tolerance. Available at http://www.doonething.org/calendar/ tolerance/UNESCO-principles.pdf [accessed 9 November 2012]. Vaisey, S. (2007). ‘Structure, culture and community: the search for belonging in 50 urban communes’, American Sociological Review, 72, pp. 851–873.

537 Van der Vegt, G. S. and J. S. Bunderson (2005). ‘Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification’, Academy of Management Journal, 48, pp. 532–547. Vislie L. (2003). ‘From integration to inclusion: focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18, pp. 17–35. Wasserman, I. C., P. V. Gallegos and B. M. Ferdman (2008). ‘Dancing with resistance: leadership challenges in fostering a culture of inclusion’. In K. M. Thomas (ed.), Diverse Resistance in Organizations, pp. 175–200. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. World Health Organization (2005). ‘Disabled often among the “poorest of poor” ’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 83, pp. 241–320. Xu, H. (2007). ‘Organizational and museum formation: a study of American local communities, 1972–1976’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management Conference, Philadelphia. Young, T. M., C. Spigner, N. Farwell and M. Stubblefield (2006). ‘Defining community’, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 4, pp. 55–68.

Yuka Fujimoto is currently a senior lecturer in human resource management in the School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University Australia. She completed her Honours degree in management at University of Queensland and PhD at Monash University. Her research interests include diversity inclusion, work and community interactions for wellbeing and human-oriented employment practices. Ruth Rentschler is professor of arts management at Deakin University, Australia. She holds a PhD in management form Monash University. Her research interests include diversity in the arts, management and governance. Huong Le is currently a lecturer in management in the School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Australia. She received her PhD from the University of Sydney. Her research interests include cultural diversity and managing a diverse workforce, and cross-cultural management. David Edwards was Senior Research Fellow in the Employment and Social Exclusion (EASE) Research Group, School of Psychology, Deakin University Australia. He completed his BA at Deakin University, Graduate Diploma in Business Administration at Swinburne University and PhD at Boston University. His research interests focus on psychiatric disability and employment and the impact of social exclusion on the well-being of individuals and society. Charmine E. J. Härtel is Professor and Chair of Human Resource Management and Organizational Development at UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane Australia. She completed her BA (Honours) in Psychology at The University of Colorado at Boulder and her MA and PhD in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at Colorado State University. Her research interests include examination of the role of HRM and leadership unethical behaviour, social inclusion, employee engagement, community relations and individual wellbeing.

© 2013 The Author(s) British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.