Jojanneke van der Toorn

Purpose: This article introduces a “best methods” approach to the development and implementation of diversity and inclusion (D&I) programs, aimed at enhancing their effectiveness and long-term impact. Design/methodology/approach: We review and synthesize the literature on D&I management and draw on Theory of Change (ToC) to develop a structured, evidence-based framework for designing, implementing and evaluating D&I programs. Findings: Current D&I efforts often fall short because organizations rely on transferring “best practices” across contexts without clearly specifying how and why these practices are expected to work. Drawing on ToC, we propose a “best methods” approach that emphasizes (a) integrating D&I activities across the full human resource (HR) cycle from recruitment and inclusion to promotion and retention, (b) systematically aligning vision, goals, implementation and evaluation and (c) grounding decisions in scientific evidence. This approach shifts attention from isolated interventions to the underlying mechanisms and conditions that drive sustained organizational change. Hence, we contribute to understanding how D&I initiatives create change over time and across organizational levels. Research limitations/implications: Our approach provides a framework for a clearer understanding of the mechanisms through which D&I initiatives create change and the organizational conditions under which they are more likely to be effective. However, as this is a conceptual paper, our proposed approach has not yet been empirically tested. Future research is therefore needed to examine its applicability and validity across organizational and societal contexts. Practical implications: For HR professionals, the best methods approach reframes D&I program management as a continuous change process rather than a set of standalone activities. The approach translates ToC into actionable steps – such as vision development, goal setting, monitoring support, implementation and outcome measurement – across HR domains. It functions as a decision aid, helping practitioners select interventions based on the mechanisms they aim to activate and better understand why initiatives succeed or fail. However, limited data and organizational access remain key challenges, underscoring the need for more systematic monitoring and closer collaboration between organizations and researchers. Social implications: The best methods approach responds to growing societal polarization and scrutiny of D&I investments by promoting an integrated, systematic and evidence-based framework. It helps organizations substantiate their D&I efforts and distinguish symbolic actions from substantive change. When applied effectively, our approach enables sector-wide learning and supports scaling initiatives that demonstrate inclusion and equity outcomes. Collaboration between organizations and scholars through standardized monitoring can reveal broader patterns, helping regulators and professional bodies identify effective D&I strategies and strengthen accountability amid D&I rollbacks. Originality/value: By shifting the focus from “best practices” to a “best methods” approach, this article offers a framework to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of D&I programs. Our insights contribute to the broader discourse on organizational change by providing an approach on how to implement strategies (the how) so that they directly impact the success of D&I efforts (the what).

Effective Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) policy depends on both attitudinal endorsement and behavioral enactment. Yet little is known about why individuals support or fail to support D&I policy in either domain. Based on survey data from 2,639 employees in a Dutch organization, we employed k-means clustering to identify five D&I policy support profiles: Champions and Opponents (supportive or resistant in both attitude and behavior), along with three more nuanced groups—Ambivalents (ambivalent in both domains), Bystanders (attitudinally supportive but behaviorally passive), and Reluctants (behaviorally engaged but attitudinally skeptical). To examine underlying reasoning, we applied a mixed-method approach combining qualitative content analysis and Latent Class Analysis. Five distinct reasoning patterns emerged. Mapping these onto support profiles revealed that Champions and Bystanders often expressed ideological endorsement of D&I, while Reluctants voiced critical yet constructive concerns about policy implementation. Opponents expressed meritocratic beliefs or policy unawareness, and Ambivalents reported policy unawareness or inaccessibility. We additionally examined whether these patterns varied across organizational positions (managers vs. employees) and group membership (minority vs. majority). This integrative analysis demonstrates that D&I policy support and resistance are multidimensional and grounded in diverse rationales. Our findings underscore the importance of tailored strategies that address diverse motives behind support, resistance, disengagement, ambivalence, and reluctant compliance.

Purpose: While the relational demography literature has explored the consequences of surface-level (visible traits like ethnicity and gender) and deep-level (underlying attributes such as work experience) dissimilarity, it remains unclear how being dissimilar across multiple specific dimensions concurrently relates to employees' perceived inclusion. This study addresses that gap by examining how dissimilarity on specific dimensions relates to perceived inclusion and whether employees perceive less inclusion when they perceive dissimilarity on more dimensions. Additionally, we investigate whether these relationships are contingent on perceptions of organizational climate for inclusion. Design/methodology/approach: We conducted a large-scale survey study comprising 6,319 employees from a Dutch public service organization. Findings: Respondents most frequently reported perceiving dissimilarity from their coworkers in terms of personality, followed by ethnicity/culture, age, work experience, religion, sexual orientation, disability, education level, political orientation and gender (in descending order). Although dissimilarity on some dimensions was unrelated to perceived inclusion, we observed that dissimilarity on a greater number of dimensions was negatively related to perceived inclusion. Moreover, we found that the negative relationships between perceived dissimilarity and perceived inclusion were often mitigated by a positive perception of the organizational climate for inclusion. Originality/value: This is the first study to assess how the multifaceted nature of dissimilarity on a broad range of dimensions interplays with perceptions of inclusion and organizational climate, highlighting key factors influencing workplace inequality and employee well-being.

Ethnic miming, or impersonating stereotypical caricatures of marginalized groups, remains popular despite years of protests. Previous studies highlight that individual differences in ideological orientations predicting a range of intergroup attitudes-namely, social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)-also predict support for ethnic miming. We propose that blatant dehumanization of the target groups is an underlying mechanism that helps to further explain why support for ethnic miming is stronger among individuals higher in SDO and RWA. Studies from the Netherlands (Study 1) and the United States (Study 2) provide support for this notion. The samples consisted of participants residing in the Netherlands (N = 142; Study 1) and the United States (N = 298; Study 2), the majority of whom identified as part of the dominant ethnic group (82% ethnically Dutch, Study 1; 76% White American, Study 2). We used both mediation and cluster analyses to test our hypotheses. The mediation analyses reveal indirect effects from each of SDO and RWA to support for ethnic miming via blatant dehumanization. Additionally, the cluster analyses reveal that although some individuals who support ethnic miming have relatively egalitarian attitudes, others have attitudes that arguably reflect a sense of cultural superiority and preference for cultural dominance (i.e., high SDO, RWA, and blatant dehumanization). The findings suggest that a sense of cultural superiority and preference for cultural dominance helps to explain why support for ethnic miming persists in both cultural contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Purpose: Organizations committed to nondiscrimination and inclusivity can monitor employee experiences to expose inequalities and develop precise, targeted policies. One approach is to collect and analyze personal data on sexual orientation and gender identity. However, are employees prepared to share such personal information? What are their hesitations, and under what conditions are they willing to disclose? To comprehend the complexities of employees’ preferences regarding the disclosure of personal information on sexual orientation and gender identity, our study investigates their attitudes toward collecting such data in the workplace. Design/methodology/approach: We conducted 23 in-depth semi-structured interviews and a focus group discussion. Findings: We uncovered four factors that shape employees’ attitudes toward data collection, including (1) the perceived benefit and relevance of collecting data on sexual orientation and gender identity to the workplace, (2) minority vs. majority group membership, (3) fear of misuse of information and negative career-related consequences, and (4) the risk of ascribed categorization. Additionally, we found four key conditions that influence employees’ disclosure preferences, including (1) the transparency of data collection purposes, (2) the accessibility and perceived privacy of data, (3) trust and anonymity issues, and (4) the voluntariness of the data collection process. Practical implications: By shedding light on employees’ attitudes, this research enhances our understanding of workplace disclosure practices, including those of sexual and/or gender minorities, helping to foster more inclusive work environments. Originality/value: To our knowledge, this is the first empirical study on employees’ attitudes toward data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace.

“Me-searchers” study topics directly or indirectly relevant to themselves—such as social groups they belong to—and are often stigmatized as being more biased (though sometimes more informed) than those researching topics unrelated to their own experience. This study explores how queer and straight researchers are perceived when studying anti-queer bias or other topics through three pre-registered experiments ( N = 823). When both studied anti-queer bias, the queer me-searcher was perceived as more biased, and the straight researcher was perceived as less informed than identical (straight and queer) researchers studying a different topic. Target researchers motivated by social justice (vs. theoretical) implications were also perceived as more biased. Crucially, we identified and tested three conceptual accounts about why and how me-searchers are stigmatized. Supporting the existence of me-search stigma, our results suggest that not only me-searchers but also allied researchers are stereotyped when studying prejudice and discrimination.

Purpose: The study investigates gender differences in workplace friendships, focusing on the number of friends, the gender of friends and the extent of same-gender friendships accounting for workplace characteristics shaping these differences. Design/methodology/approach: We used three-level data (employees nested in departments and organizations) from six different sectors across nine countries and multilevel mixed-effects models to test the hypotheses. Findings: The results indicate that women have more workplace friends than men. Given sufficient opportunities, both men and women prefer same-gender workplace friendships. Moreover, when having a manager of the same gender, not only men but also women have significantly more same-gender workplace friends. Originality/value: This study contributes to the understanding of workplace friendships by employing unique data from 2,620 employees across various organizations and different sectors. Additionally, it provides insights into how organizational contexts can shape friendship networks among employees and gender dynamics therein.

Exposure to conflict‐related violence is one of the most harmful consequences of living amidst a violent intergroup conflict. While its potential significance is profound, the impact of exposure to conflict‐related violence on intergroup empathy remains largely unexplored. The current paper aims to address this gap by proposing political ideology as a potential moderator of the exposure‐empathy link. Three studies conducted among Jewish‐Israeli participants reveal an interactive effect of exposure to conflict‐related violence and political ideology on intergroup empathy. In Study 1, high (vs. low) exposure to conflict‐related violence was associated with decreased empathy among rightists—but increased empathy among leftists—towards individual outgroup members. In Study 2, political ideology also moderated the exposure‐empathy relationship: Bereaved (vs. non‐bereaved) rightists exhibited significantly less intergroup empathy towards both an individual bereaved outgroup member and the outgroup as a whole, an effect not found among leftists. Study 3 revealed a similar, albeit marginally significant, interactive effect of exposure to conflict‐related violence and political ideology on empathy towards individuals living in a different violent conflict. Finally, an internal meta‐analysis provided further, more robust evidence for these effects. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of the findings and suggest future directions for research on this important issue.

The open science (OS) movement has the potential to fundamentally shape how researchers conduct research and distribute findings. However, the implications for research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer/questioning (LGBTIQ+) experiences present unique considerations. In this paper, included in the special issue on Reimagining LGBTIQ+ Research, we explore how the OS movement broadens access to and comprehension of LGBTIQ+ experiences while simultaneously imposing limitations on the representation of these identities and raising concerns about risks to LGBTIQ+ researchers and participants. Our research focuses on three facets of the OS movement. First, we examine practices related to open data, which advocates that data should be accessible to other researchers to analyze. Yet, providing access to such data challenges may compromise trust between the research team and study participants. Second, we examine practices related to open replicable research, particularly as it has the potential to both highlight and erase the experiences of groups within the LGBTIQ+ community. Finally, we consider how open access, making scholarly articles free to the public, may help educate a broader audience on the lived experiences of LGBTIQ+ people, but in regions where these identities remain heavily stigmatized and/or criminalized, access may be blocked or individuals could be penalized for retrieving this information.

This article addresses the complex issue of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection in workplaces, highlighting the intricate balance between fostering inclusion and mitigating potential harm and exclusion. This tension manifests uniquely across diverse cultural, legal, and organizational settings. We review existing literature, offer practical guidance for decision‐makers, and outline future research avenues. While SOGI data collection in workplaces can enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and elevate the visibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ+) employees, challenges include the risk of discrimination, privacy concerns, and linguistic complexities. To address these, researchers and practitioners must consider the purpose, language, and cultural context of data collection, involving LGBTIQ+ stakeholders, and conducting reconnaissance studies. Future research opportunities lie in understanding employee willingness to share SOGI data, motivations of human resource (HR) and DEI professionals, and the impact on organizational culture. Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research to ease the tension between inclusion and protection, we conclude that responsible SOGI data collection demands a nuanced approach that prioritizes inclusion and equity while addressing privacy concerns and potential harm.