The Influence of DEI and Organizational Justice on Employee Engagement: A Comparative Study between Gen Y and Z

Main Article Content

Kakada Eng
Phanasan Kohsuwan

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: This study explored how Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices, specifically through Inclusive Leadership, Diversity Attributes, and a DEI-oriented organizational climate, influenced perceptions of fairness and employee engagement among Generations Y and Z in Bangkok, Thailand. It addresses the need to understand generational differences in responses to DEI initiatives and their impact on workplace engagement.


Introduction/Background: Organizations face challenges in addressing the specific needs of multigenerational workforces, and this study offers a framework for understanding how DEI practices can effectively tackle these challenges. The emphasis on generational differences reflects shifting workforce expectations and the growing demand for inclusivity in leadership and decision-making processes. This research bridges the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical applications of DEI, equipping organizations with tools to navigate generational complexities effectively.


Methodology: A quantitative methodology was employed in this research study. Self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data from 793 participants, including 392 individuals from Generation Z and 401 from Generation Y. A stratified convenience sample was used to ensure representation across various industries in Bangkok, Thailand. The questionnaire assessed perceptions of inclusive leadership, organizational justice, and employee engagement using validated scales. The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique was applied to analyze relationships among the key variables and evaluate the significance of observed effects. The use of validated scales and SEM analysis enhanced the study’s precision and generalizability, offering valuable insights into the interplay between leadership, justice, and engagement. Additionally, the stratified sampling approach ensured that the data represented a diverse range of industries and organizational settings, broadening the applicability of the findings.


Findings: Inclusive Leadership, marked by transparency, approachability, and support, boosts perceptions of fairness, especially among Generation Z. This generation values leadership that fosters trust and inclusivity. Organizational Justice—covering Distributive, Procedural, Interactional, and Informational Justice—is key to engagement for both Gen Z and Gen Y. Gen Z prioritizes fairness in resource allocation, processes, communication, and transparency, while Gen Y focuses on alignment with personal goals. These generational differences highlight the need for DEI-driven leadership and policies that meet diverse expectations, fostering cohesion, reducing conflicts, and improving productivity.


Contribution/Impact on Society: This research advances the understanding of employee engagement in diverse workplaces by integrating generational perspectives into DEI and Organizational Justice theories. It underscores the critical role of inclusive and transparent leadership in driving engagement, and highlights the necessity of tailored DEI initiatives to meet the distinct preferences of different generational cohorts. The findings have broader implications for organizational practices, emphasizing equity and inclusivity as essential to enhancing workforce engagement and well-being. This research also provides actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners striving to create equitable and inclusive organizational environments that foster innovation and collaboration.


Recommendations: Organizations should invest in leadership development programs that emphasize inclusive leadership styles focused on transparency, approachability, and supportiveness. Creating a positive diversity climate through policies and practices that prioritize equity and inclusion is essential for fostering a sense of belonging and psychological safety among employees. Engagement strategies should be tailored to the unique needs of Generations Y and Z, recognizing their distinct expectations and preferences. Recommendations include implementing mentorship programs, establishing forums for open dialogue on diversity issues, and aligning DEI goals with organizational values and strategies. Organizations should integrate DEI metrics into performance evaluations to ensure accountability and continuous improvement in fostering inclusivity. Leveraging technology to enhance communication and collaboration across generational cohorts can further strengthen engagement and drive innovation.


Research Limitations: This study’s reliance on self-reported data may have introduced bias, and it focused on a single geographical area (Bangkok, Thailand). While the sample size was robust, these factors may limit the generalizability of its findings to other cultural or organizational settings. External factors influencing employee engagement, such as economic conditions or industry-specific considerations, were not explored in depth. Future research studies could address these limitations by employing longitudinal designs and incorporating qualitative methods to gain deeper insights into employees’ lived experiences. While the quantitative methods used were rigorous, nuanced or context-specific factors influencing fairness and engagement perceptions may have been overlooked.


Future Research: Future studies should broaden the geographical and cultural scope to validate these findings in different contexts. Longitudinal research could provide deeper insights into how generational preferences and engagement evolve over time. Further research also could explore the interplay between DEI practices and organizational factors like innovation, employee retention, and performance metrics. Investigating the impact of technological advancements and remote work on DEI outcomes could offer valuable insights for modern workplaces. Examining cultural diversity within generational cohorts also could help refine strategies. Understanding the influence of macroeconomic trends and global movements on DEI perceptions could provide a holistic view of how societal changes shape workplace dynamics.

Article Details

Section
Research Articles

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2

Adobe. (2020). Adobe diversity and inclusion: Year in review 2020. https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/ diversity/pdfs/adobe_diversity-and-inclusion_year-in-review_fy2020.pdf

Bisel, R. S., Messersmith, A. S., & Keyton, J. (2021). The communication of justice, injustice, and necessary evils. SAGE Open, 11(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211040796

Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134369

Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654

Cedaryana, H., & Safria, F. (2024). Employee turnover intentions and the role of workplace culture. Journal of Business Studies, 12(1), 45–67. https://www.goldenratio.id/index.php/grdis/article/download/798/556

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Deloitte. (2018, January 22). The diversity and inclusion revolution: Eight powerful truths. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/deloitte-review/issue-22/diversity-and-inclusion-at-work-eight-powerful-truths.html

Dimock, M. (2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667087

Gallup. (2020). State of the global workplace report. Gallup Press. https://media.websitecdn.net/sites/674/ 2020/05/State_of_the_Global_Workplace_Report.pdf

Gonzalez, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.498

Google. (2021). Google’s diversity and inclusion report. https://diversity.google/annual-report/

Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/256901

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.

Hollander, E. P. (2012). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. Routledge.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Hunt, V., Layton, D., & Prince, S. (2015, January 1). Diversity matters. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287

Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140 107

Kossek, E. E., Lobel, S. A., & Brown, J. (2006). Human resource strategies to manage workforce diversity. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Diversity (pp. 53–74). Sage.

Mor Barak, M. E. (2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is inclusion? Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131. 2015.1035599

Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412–1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017190

Phillips, K. W. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022 38367

Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002

Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202

Salesforce. (2019). Equality at Salesforce: Equal pay and beyond. https://s23.q4cdn.com/574569502/files/doc_financials/2019/Salesforce-FY-2019-Annual-Report.pdf

Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review, 61(3), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619841006

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.

Travis, D. J., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2010). Fight or flight? Factors influencing child welfare workers' propensity to seek positive change or disengage from their jobs. Journal of Social Service Research, 36(3), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488371003697905

Unilever. (2020). Unilever’s sustainable living plan. https://dlib.hust.edu.vn/bitstream/HUST/25661/1/ OER000006531.pdf#page=464