Despite various policy shifts and organizational efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace over the past several decades, inequities in how work is assigned and performed still exist. Members of historically marginalized groups often face unequal task assignments, experience stereotypes influencing their roles, and encounter barriers that limit their ability to perform work equitably. These inequities not only reinforce systemic biases but also hinder organizational goals for fairness and inclusivity. Given recent changes in governmental and organizational policy to scale back or eliminate DEI initiatives (Executive Order No. 14,151, 2025), these inequities may likely persist and even widen in the near future. Given these conclusions, we propose a supplement to traditional job analysis methods—that of experience sampling—as a tool to better uncover these inequities. We first review how job analysis is positioned as both a practical HR tool and a research method meant to support the creation of fair HR systems, followed by a summary (guided by diversity theory) of the biases that can still manifest within traditional job analysis methods. Then, we introduce experience sampling methodology (ESM) as a novel job analysis tool that can be used in tandem with traditional job analysis to advance DEI goals in organizations. The paper concludes with a concrete description of how such methods could be implemented, including considerations of organizational buy-in, participant sampling, and conditions for ESM use.

As organizations are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of selecting inclusive leaders, this paper proposes measuring inclusive leadership proficiency as an assessment center (AC) dimension. We propose that ACs present a novel way to effectively assess inclusive leadership using interpersonal behavioral simulation exercises, such as role plays. It is argued that AC-measured inclusive leadership can provide incremental prediction of leader performance beyond commonly assessed AC dimensions; and that it positively predicts follower performance and follower demographic diversity. We conclude by suggesting ways future research might empirically investigate the validity and reliability of AC-measured inclusive leadership in organizational settings.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) research can help to address some of society's grand challenges (for example, climate change, energy sustainability and social inequality). Historically, CSR research has focused on organizational-level factors that address environmental and social issues and the firm's resulting financial performance, with much less focus on individual-level factors. In response to research calls to consider the individual level of analysis, we provide a narrative review to improve our understanding of the interconnections between CSR and individual behaviour. We organize existing research around three individual-level categories: CSR perceptions, CSR attitudes and CSR behaviours. We summarize research elucidating how perceptions and attitudes influence behaviours and how organization and higher-level CSR context and individual-level CSR readiness moderate perceptions-behaviours and attitudes-behaviours relationships. We offer a conceptual model that organizes the diverse, conflicting and multidisciplinary research on the CSR-individual behaviour link and that can be used to guide future research.

Summary While research from various disciplines shows that women continue to disproportionately face workplace injustices compared to men, OB research has not found meaningful gender differences in self‐reported workplace justice perceptions. This paradox has received little attention in the otherwise well‐established organizational justice literature. We applied an abductive approach to investigate this paradox by a) confirming its existence, and b) proposing and empirically evaluating seven possible explanations for its existence, using multiple methods and seven distinct datasets. We found that this paradox is unlikely to be explained by measurement invariance, different expectations for treatment, whether the context is male‐dominated, differences across years, or differences in how justice perceptions are formed. We did find, however, that when using alternate measurement approaches, women recalled gender‐based injustice experiences, reported them as having occurred more frequently than did men, and reported them as having been negatively impactful on their lives/careers. We conclude that the most promising explanation for this paradox is that extant organizational justice measures are deficient for the purpose of capturing variance accountable to gender‐based injustice. This highlights the need for more inclusive approaches for the measurement and application of organizational justice, especially when studying the relationship between gender and organizational justice.

Abstract This chapter reviews the scope and impact of organizational justice research through lenses that consider both culture and moral philosophy. Our review summarizes justice research by broad topical areas (employee-level issues, employment practices, and organizational characteristics), considering in particular the extant cross-cultural research to date within each category. Building on the work of Shao and colleagues (2013), we present a framework that further integrates multiple philosophical traditions (natural law, deontology, contractualism, utilitarianism, social recognition, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism) to more fully conceptualize justice motives as they are held across cultures. Our goal is to encourage new theorizing that examines justice as an organizing principle for social cooperation that is sensitive to cultural differences. We conclude by suggesting avenues for new research, specifically aimed at addressing emerging social issues affecting workers around the world.

To make informed decisions, assessment theorists, researchers, and practitioners can evaluate the overlap among (1) relevant theories, (2) empirical contributions, and (3) best practices. Unfortunately, such a task may seem daunting due to the so-called science-practice gap, which can thwart collaboration among these parties. This paper presents an epistemology for delineating the importance of integrating these three sources of knowledge. We then apply this epistemology to show that our current knowledge of assessment and development topics are well integrated in some places, but still quite lacking in others.

Purpose Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) have been shown to influence several employee outcomes positively. To extend the research, the authors examine the effect of i-deals on employees’ perceptions of organizational justice, in particular, how the relationship between employees’ own i-deals and organizational justice is affected by employees' job performance as well as their perceptions of coworkers’ i-deals. Design/methodology/approach The authors tested the theoretical model using survey data from 182 hotel employees. Findings Results show that i-deals are positively related to employees’ perceptions of organizational justice and that such effects are stronger among high performing employees. The effect of i-deals on organizational justice was also more pronounced among employees who viewed coworkers as having successfully negotiated i-deals. Practical implications The authors' findings suggest that organizations can benefit from providing i-deals through employees’ enhanced perceptions of organizational justice. The paper thus recommends that organizations understand the impact of providing more flexible human resources (HR) practices and customized work arrangements that are aligned with individual goals and needs. This may be particularly relevant to high performers. Furthermore, the findings suggest that organizations may want to make i-deals available to employees more widely than to just a few selected individuals. Originality/value This study is one of a few attempts that empirically investigate the relationship between i-deals and organizational justice. The findings of this study shed light on the possibility that employees develop positive justice perceptions toward employeesʼ organization based on the appreciation of the customized work arrangements granted to both themselves and others.

Summary Recent research has uncovered the debilitating effects that customers' unfair treatment of service workers has for both employees and their employers. These studies have largely explained the effects of customer mistreatment through a conservation of resources (COR) theory lens, arguing that customer injustice depletes the regulatory resources of service employees, thereby impairing their well‐being and ability to perform their jobs effectively. In our paper, we contend that aspects of employee–customer social exchange should also be considered, and that such relational processes are critical above and beyond COR effects. After formulating our theoretical model, we offer time‐lagged data from a field study of service workers ( N = 337) supporting our hypothesis that the negative relationship between customer injustice and employee citizenship behavior directed toward customers is sequentially mediated by perceived customer support and customer commitment, respectively, over and above COR effects. Incorporating insights from the customer service literature, we further demonstrate the role of display rule perceptions as a moderator of these sequential indirect effects.

A large portion of the workforce carries an invisible stigmatized identity with them in the workplace. Despite this pervasiveness, employees with these stigmatized identities continue to experience bias and inequity. This presents difficulties not only for these employees, but also for the organizations that employ them, making it essential to better understand how employees with stigmatized identities can effectively navigate the workplace. To advance our understanding of stigmatized identities in the workplace, this symposium explores this question across multiple levels in organizations. By examining the impact of organizational contexts, interpersonal processes, and intrapersonal management strategies, five papers provide insights into circumstances which can mitigate negative outcomes and improve equity for prospective and incumbent employees with stigmatized identities. Moral Duties vs. Moral Values: Disabled Prospective Employee Responses to Organizational Messaging Author: Julia A. Langdon; London Business School Author: Oriane Georgeac; Boston U. Questrom School of Business Author: Aneeta Rattan; London Business School Small Empires: How Equipped are Small Business Owners in Hiring People with Disabilities? Author: Mason Ameri; Rutgers Business School Author: Terri R Kurtzberg; Rutgers Business School (Un)common Ground: Misperceived Similarity Shapes Support for Employees with Invisible Disabilities Author: Chloe Kovacheff; U. of Toronto Acting as a Change Agent: The Factors that Facilitate Lesbian and Gay Employees’ Proactivity Author: Chris Zhang; Wilfrid Laurier U. Author: You-Ta Chuang; York U. Author: Robin Church; Ryerson U. Author: Jing Wang; York U. Effortful Identity Management Among Workers with Hearing Loss Author: Alecia Marie Santuzzi; Northern Illinois U. Author: Robert Keating; Northern Illinois U. Author: Jesus Martinez; Northern Illinois U. Author: Lisa M Finkelstein; Northern Illinois U. Author: Larissa K. Barber; San Diego State U. Author: Deborah Elizabeth Rupp; George Mason U.

Gender equity and inclusion has taken center stage in business, science, and policy making. We reflect on three systemic challenges that might hinder the rise of qualified women scholars to leadership positions in business schools: (a) The masculine social structure of business schools, (b) a muddled approach to performance evaluation, and (c) an under-representation of research topics that affect women in the workplace. Drawing on the extant science in gender bias and gender equity combined with the collective expertise and experience of the author team, we offer 12 actionable solutions for gender-inclusive leadership in business schools. We believe that addressing these challenges could benefit all members, not just women, because it could signal more equitable pathways to multiple business school stakeholders and intended beneficiaries, such as students, donors, practitioners, and policy makers.

This chapter presents an overview of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Examples of age discrimination cases are summarized under the disparate treatment scenario, including criteria for establishing a similarly situated younger employee and a substantially younger employee. The authors also include a section on the ADEA and mixed-motive cases, its coverage within the federal sector, and hostile environment cases based on age. Another section discusses the history of the ADEA and adverse impact cases and includes how this process differs from that under Title VII. Various organizational defenses are discussed, supported by relevant court decisions. A final component is a discussion of the Older Workers Benefit Act (1990). The chapter concludes with recommended best practices, representative age discrimination settlements with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and a list of supplemental readings.

In this chapter, the authors introduce fundamental discrimination scenarios. These include disparate treatment, pattern or practice scenarios, class action suits, adverse impact, and situations involving mixed motives. As the authors outline, these scenarios consist of the presentation of evidence using a three-step burden-shifting process—beginning with evidence presented by plaintiffs, followed by the defense, and then back to plaintiffs. Another section in the chapter describes how statistics are used to provide evidence of discrimination under the adverse impact scenario. In addition, the authors provide some possible options to help avoid adverse impact. Further, the chapter discusses the vital role that performing a systematic job analysis can have in justifying personnel decisions, thus helping defend against allegations of employment discrimination. A list of best practices/recommendations is included at the end of the chapter.

This chapter describes some of the most significant cases in the area of employment discrimination (e.g., McDonnell Douglas v. Green [1977], which largely established the disparate treatment scenario; Teamsters v. United States [1977], and Hazelwood v. United States [1977], which solidified legal guidelines for pattern or practices cases [a subtype of the disparate treatment scenario]). The authors also present the historic adverse impact case Griggs v. Duke Power (1972). Among other concepts, Griggs famously contained the key terms of job-relatedness and business necessity to defend tests and job requirements that unintentionally disadvantage protected subgroup members. The authors also describe the complicated cases Wards Cove v. Atonio (1989) and Ricci v. DiStefano (2009), both of which have often been mischaracterized and misunderstood. Finally, concerns about discrimination due to the use of criminal history background and credit history checks are discussed. The chapter ends with a summary of the law on English-language requirements.