Forty-five years of research on diversity, equity and inclusion in management

DEI studies as critical issues in organizational management have exponentially developed in the last three decades since scholars (e.g. Cox and Blake, 1991) suggested a greater focus on diversity management in the organization (Holmes et al., 2021; Janssens and Steyaert, 2019; Roberson et al., 2017). Early studies focused on representational diversity (Roberson et al., 2017). Scholars contended that increasing the number of diverse workers would enhance organizational effectiveness by bringing innovative and creative ideas to the organization. However, researchers quickly recognized the complex characteristics underlying diverse groups, such as unconscious bias against differences (see Leslie et al., 2020; Roberson et al., 2017) and historically institutionalized inequality between groups (DiTomaso, 2021). Discrimination and stereotyping stemming from prejudice can affect the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects of individuals within organizations (Randolph et al., 2023). They realized that these barriers can hinder groups from achieving desired outcomes if organizations only focus on numerical diversity. There is currently wide consensus that diversity is a double-edged sword for organizational effectiveness. It can be a source of conflict and obstacles to group cohesion and social integration, but it can also be a source of synergy and learning for creativity (Stahl and Maznevski, 2021). Accordingly, recent studies have gone beyond representational diversity. In this section, we introduce the research streams by synthesizing the findings from a broad range of scholarly studies on DEI in organizations.

Diversity has been conceptualized in various ways in the literature, and the scope of diversity has become broader and deeper (Triana et al., 2021). Demographic diversity, defined as “readily observable individual differences such as sex, race, and age” (Triana et al., 2021, p. 2138), has been the most common scope. However, scholars have also explored the effect of a broader range of diversity, such as job-related diversity, including education, work experience, and functional background, as well as deep-level diversity, such as class, religion, personality, values, attitudes, and beliefs (e.g. Ahmad et al., 2021; Bhardwaj et al., 2021; Bell et al., 2011; Triana et al., 2021). Harrison and Klein (2007) compiled various conceptualizations and proposed a typology that distinguishes three dispersion forms of work units: separation, variety, and disparity. These forms include observational, job-related, and deep-level diversity. According to this comprehensive conceptualization, diversity is characterized as disagreement on continuous attributes such as values and attitudes, uniqueness, and inequality of desired resources among unit members (Harrison and Klein, 2007). Many researchers have based their studies on this typology and conceptualization (see Roberson et al., 2017).

In addition to individual characteristics to conceptualize diversity, scholars have also examined group composition and its effect on group-level outcomes. Demographic faultlines refer to “hypothetical dividing lines that split a group or a team into two or more subgroups based on one or more individual attributes” (Thatcher and Patel, 2012, p. 970). Since faultlines were first introduced, scholars have conceptually and empirically investigated how faultlines contribute to various diversity-related outcomes (Thatcher and Patel, 2012). As a related concept, prejudice, defined as “a negative attitude toward another person or group formed in advance of any experience with that person or group” (see Lavan and Ropez, 2023, p. 897), has been the subject of extensive scholarly investigation, with researchers exploring its antecedents and consequences (Randolph et al., 2023). The present body of research expands the scope of diversity studies by offering sophisticated insights into the detrimental effects of discrimination, bias, and prejudice, which serve as antitheses to creating a diverse and inclusive organizational environment (see Lavan and Ropez, 2023).

Scholars have used social identity (Tajfel, 1978) and self-categorization theories (Turner, 1982) to explain why demographic diversity matters in organizations. These theories explain why individuals classify themselves and others into specific social identity groups and how their identity influences interpersonal interactions and intergroup relations. Drawing upon self-categorization theory, identity-blind, identity-conscious, and multicultural ideologies have been proposed as frameworks for ameliorating intergroup relations (Leslie and Flynn, 2024). Other theories have been used, tested, and developed to explain the nomological network between multi-level antecedents and diversity and organizational effectiveness (Holmes et al., 2021; Roberson et al., 2017; Roberson, 2019). For example, scholars supporting the value-in-diversity theory (e.g. Cox and Blake, 1991; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) have viewed diversity in the work unit as a source of creative and unique ideas for innovation and problem-solving and postulated that a work unit with demographic diversity could lead to better performance.

Scholars have also developed and elaborated on various theoretical frameworks and research models with DEI-focused moderators and mediators to examine the link between diversity and organizational effectiveness. Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) explains the reciprocal exchange of employees’ favorable work attitudes towards an organization’s efforts to build and maintain a pro-diversity atmosphere. In addition, Van Knippenberg et al. (2004) developed the categorization-elaboration model (CEM) to explain how intergroup biases and misunderstandings caused by diversity restrict group information exchange and integration processing, which are preconditions for experiencing the synergetic benefits of diversity. CEM has influenced studies in terms of the underlying mechanisms of why and how organizations can encourage information exchange and mitigate the disruptive effects of categorization (Roberson et al., 2017; Roberson, 2019). Also, Van Knippenberg and colleagues (2007) defined diversity beliefs as “beliefs about the value of diversity to workgroup functioning, as a moderator of responses to diversity” (p. 209). They argued that diversity benefits group performance when group members believe so. This conceptualization has become a basis of diversity and inclusion climate conceptualization.

As an underlying mechanism in the nomological network of diversity, scholars have paid increasing attention to diversity as an organizational climate in which members need sufficient agreement on the value of diversity (Chan, 1998). Several studies have also explored how a shared perception of diversity is formed (e.g. Cox, 1994), how inclusive climate is different from diversity climate (Nishii, 2013), and how diversity and inclusive climates increase organizational effectiveness such as organizational commitment (Li et al., 2019) and performance (McKay et al., 2011). Cox (1994) also proposed multiple-level antecedents to determine the organizational diversity climate in the interactional model of cultural diversity theory. The theory proposes that several factors at multiple levels interact to shape the extent of an organization’s diversity climate. Diversity climate is defined as “the degree to which a firm advocates fair human resource policies and socially integrates underrepresented employees” (Mckay et al., 2008, p. 352). Nishii (2013) differentiated inclusion climate from diversity climate, arguing that diversity climate may stimulate resentment or backlash from privileged groups; therefore, it does not encourage a synergetic effect from diverse employees. Nishii (2013) focused on the genuine effect of inclusion, and constructed dimensions of inclusive climate with three dimensions: fairly implemented employment practices, integration of differences, and inclusion in decision-making.

These climate studies, especially inclusive climate studies, position inclusive climate as a critical underlying mechanism—a moderator or mediator—between representational diversity and organizational outcomes (Nishii, 2013; Li et al., 2019). Holmes et al.’s (2021) meta-analysis investigated the moderators between diversity climate and organizational outcomes. They found that diversity climate is more strongly related to outcomes when using an inclusive climate measure for attitudinal outcomes rather than performance outcomes in a more demographically diverse work context and when members share a similar perception of the organizational climate. Currently, Ward-Bartlett and colleagues (2023) have proposed a novel typology of diversity climates, identifying five distinct configurations: genuinely supportive, speciously supportive, moderate/unsupportive, multi-modal, and fragmented. These configurations emerge from members’ diverse experiences, values, and interactions, and ultimately yield differential organizational outcomes.

Bernstein et al. (2020) reviewed multiple diversity studies and concluded that representational diversity does not promote an organization’s inclusive climate. They introduced the theory of generative interactions and emphasized the importance of robust organizational practices to generate genuine and deep interaction, which lessens the effect of default dynamics and leads to inclusion and equity. Bernstein and colleagues (2020) indicated that diversity management practices are one of the most critical organizational-level interventions to change employees’ perceptions of stereotyping and form an inclusive climate. As a result, these interventions influence organizational outcomes (see Köllen, 2021; Guillaume et al., 2017).

These organizational interventions, known as diversity management practices, were initiated when affirmative action and equal opportunity programs were introduced. They aimed to promote employment and career development for minority groups (e.g. black and female employees) as a result of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Köllen, 2021). Most organizations now implement diversity management practices, which include recruiting diverse employees, diversity-related employer branding, diversity training, diversity-oriented human resource (HR) practices, work-life initiatives, mentoring and sponsorship, and employee resource groups (Avery and Mckay, 2010; Köllen, 2021; Nishii et al., 2018). Most research has empirically explored whether these diversity management practices have increased representational diversity and diversity/inclusive climate in organizations and contributed to organizational effectiveness (Nishii et al., 2018).

Nishii et al.’s (2018) review and other comprehensive reviews on organizational outcomes and the effectiveness of diversity management programs have shown mixed and inconsistent results (Bernstein et al., 2020; Köllen, 2021). Leslie et al.’s (2014) meta-analysis indicated that affirmative action programs limit the target’s performance outcomes as programs may strengthen negative stereotypes and lower the self-competence of program recipients. In response, researchers introduced the process model, which emphasizes that the outcomes of diversity practices are determined by the underlying mechanisms, such as the implementation process, stakeholders’ intentions, perceptions, and interpretations of the programs, as well as the contextual characteristics (Leslie et al., 2014).

Given that leaders are critical agents to effectively implement diversity practices, scholars have also studied leadership types and behaviors, indicating that leaders have a strong influence on various decisions and are an important source of social information (Chanland and Murphy, 2018; Greer et al., 2012; Nishii and Mayer, 2009). For example, Silver and colleagues (2023) underscored the pivotal role of leadership in shaping diversity climates, criticizing the destructive nature of leader biases and advocating for constructive leadership allyship to ameliorate social inequalities within organizations. In addition, research investigating the way to decrease prejudice and discrimination using diversity management program have been explored. Waples and Botsford Morgan (2023) proposed a multi-level model that posits that macro-level societal events related to prejudice and discrimination can exert a trickle-down effect on meso and micro levels, thereby influencing the development of specific diversity management programs. Also, Cox (2023) introduced new diversity training program – habit-breaking training that can lead to meaningful and sustainable improvement on DEI issues in an organization.

In sum, DEI research has grown substantially and expanded to include various subtopics, particularly over the last 30 years. Researchers agree that having only representational diversity does not guarantee desirable outcomes. Reviewing the diversity literature provides insights on the complicated underlying mechanisms at the individual level, shared perception level (culture and climate), and organizational level (program implementation). These factors interact to generate positive or negative organizational outcomes. Building on this understanding, we review a wide range of DEI studies published in management journals to better understand the chronological research trends, emergent diversity dimensions, and dominant topics in specific periods using the scoping review method.

To comprehensively review the literature on DEI published in management journals, we conducted a scoping review. A scoping review is a useful approach to examine the scope, volume, focus, and overall state of research on a given topic and to determine if conducting a systematic review on this topic is worthwhile (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Munn et al., 2018). Our study aims to identify the scope, patterns, and trends of DEI research and to identify the research gaps with implications for future research and practice.

We searched articles on Web of Science, one of the most comprehensive databases in social science (Birkle et al., 2020). Because our review focuses on DEI in work settings but not in social, community, and educational settings, our search terms included the following two parts: (1) diversity, equity, and/or inclusion in (2) an organizational context. We searched articles using Boolean operators and the keywords as follows: (DEI or “Diversity, equity, * inclusion” or Divers* or Inclusi* or Equit*) AND (“At work” or Workplace* or Corporate* or Firm* or Compan* or Government* or Organization* or Sector* or Enterprise* or Employee* or Worker* or Work* or Culture* or Climate*). We did not limit the time period of articles because we wanted to see the entire publication history in the management field. We searched articles that included the keywords in the title, abstract, and author keywords, yielding a total of 480,282 articles. We removed articles that were in non-management fields, non-journal articles (e.g. books, book chapters, proceedings, reviews, notes, meeting abstracts), non-Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) journal articles, and not written in English. As a result, 6,306 articles remained.

We reviewed the abstracts of the 6,306 articles and excluded irrelevant articles based on the following exclusion criteria: (a) articles in non-peer-reviewed journals or non-management journals; (b) articles including the keywords, “diversity,” “equity,” and/or “inclusion,” with different meanings (e.g. diverse as a simple predicate, equity as a financial term, brand equity, crowdfunding equity); (c) articles that examined diversity, equity, and/or inclusion in non-work settings (e.g. K-12 or higher education, social, or community settings); (d) articles that examined concepts of diversity, equity, and/or inclusion that were not relevant to the scope of this study (e.g. business diversification, portfolio diversification, product diversification, partner diversity, stakeholder diversity, economic diversity, ecosystem diversity, biodiversity); and (e) articles that included the terms diversity, equity, and/or inclusion, but they were not the main topic (e.g. as part of implications of research on other topics). As a result, 725 articles were identified. The process of article selection is illustrated in Figure 1.

We carefully reviewed the abstracts of the 725 articles to identify the main focus (i.e. diversity, equity, and/or inclusion), dimensions of DEI (e.g. gender, age, race/ethnicity, culture/multinational, disability, LGBT, neuro-diversity, pay, and overview/general if diversity, equity, and inclusion were discussed without a particular dimension), and work environment(s) in which diversity, equity, and/or inclusion were discussed. We coded each article by the name(s) of the author(s), year of publication, title of the journal, main focuses, dimensions of diversity, equity, and/or inclusion, and work environments, and the main topics for articles whose dimension(s) was categorized as general/overview. The data were recorded in Microsoft Excel.

Figure 2 shows the publication trend of the 725 articles by the year of publication. The first article focusing on equity theory was published by Middlemist and Peterson (1976) in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, but it was not until 1994 that the publications began to slowly increase. However, most articles were published in the last 11 years from 2011 to 2022, and the largest number was published in 2021 (71 articles, 9.8%). However, considering that the data were collected in October 2022, it is likely that the number of articles published in 2022 is similar to the number in 2021. The publication trends by year are discussed in more detail in a later section.

As shown in Figure 2, the majority of the articles have examined diversity (621 articles, 85.7%) with a significant increase since the 1990s. However, relatively few articles (74 articles, 10.2%) have focused on equity since the first article on equity in the management field was published in 1976. Articles on inclusion were first published in 1999, but most of the studies on inclusion have been published since 2018. Of the 120 articles (16.6%) on inclusion, 85 articles (70.8%) were published from 2018 to 2022, and 48 (40%) of the articles on inclusion were published in 2021 and 2022.

While many articles focused on only one topic (diversity, inclusion, or equity), some articles discussed two or more topics simultaneously. Thus, the combined number of publications on diversity (621), inclusion (120), and equity (74) exceeds the total number of articles (725). For example, out of the 621 articles on diversity, 542 articles focused mainly on diversity, 48 articles covered both diversity and inclusion, 21 articles discussed both diversity and equity, and 10 articles discussed all DEI topics together. Out of the 120 articles on inclusion, 61 articles focused mainly on inclusion, 48 articles covered both diversity and inclusion, one article discussed both inclusion and equity, and 10 articles discussed all DEI topics together. Out of the 74 articles on equity, 42 articles focused mainly on equity, 21 articles discussed both diversity and equity, one article discussed both inclusion and equity, and 10 articles discussed all DEI topics together. We also found that some authors used the terms equity and equality interchangeably (e.g. Konrad et al., 2016) or discussed equality instead of equity (e.g. Hideg and Ferris, 2017).

The DEI publication trends can be categorized into four phases by time period (see Figure 2). We examined DEI studies and the dimensions explored in each phase.

The beginning phase was from 1976 to 1993 when articles on equity (i.e. Middlemist and Peterson, 1976) and diversity (i.e. Kirkham and Thompson, 1984) first appeared in the management field. Only 10 articles on diversity and equity were published between 1976 and 1993, of which six articles focused on equity (e.g. pay equity, equity theory, perceptions of equitable treatment, and equity sensitivity), four articles focused on diversity (e.g. gender diversity, cultural diversity, demographic diversity, and diversity climate), and no articles focused on inclusion in this period. Phase 1 is the only period in which equity was emphasized more than diversity.

From 1994 to 2010, research on DEI started to increase. A total of 181 articles were identified, of which 165 articles discussed diversity: 156 articles focused only on diversity, four articles discussed diversity along with equity, four articles investigated diversity with inclusion, and one article examined diversity, inclusion, and equity together. Of the other 21 articles focusing on equity, 16 articles only focused on equity, four articles discussed equity with diversity, and one article discussed equity with the concepts of diversity and inclusion. During this period, the first article on inclusion was published (i.e. Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998). Five articles on inclusion were found, but no research focused only on inclusion; all of these articles discussed inclusion in relation to diversity.

During this phase, various dimensions of diversity were examined although many articles (71 articles) examined diversity from a general perspective without considering a specific dimension, which were categorized as overview/general articles in this research and discussed in detail in the later part of this study. The most common dimensions of diversity were race/ethnicity (23 articles), cultural/multinational (16 articles), gender (15 articles), demographic (12 articles), age (9 articles), educational (5 articles), and functional diversity (5 articles). In addition, new dimensions of diversity were first examined in this phase including employment type, work arrangement, tenure, expertise, linguistics, structural, technology, interpersonal, intergroup, and LGBT diversity. Diversity was also newly discussed in terms of values and perspectives, such as cognitive (e.g. Mitchell et al., 2009), religious (e.g. Hicks, 2002), and ethical diversity (e.g. Hunt and Hansen, 2007). Another notable change during this period was that dimensions of diversity began to be grouped or differentiated, such as surface-level and deep-level diversity (e.g. Harrison et al., 2002), job-related and less job-related diversity (e.g. Webber and Donahue, 2001), and visible and invisible diversity (e.g. Bowen and Blackmon, 2003).

The majority of the equity studies in this period were categorized as overview/general articles focusing mainly on the concept of equity, equity theory, and equity sensitivity. Of the five articles on inclusion, four articles explored general concepts of inclusion or inclusion from a broad perspective (e.g. organizational inclusion, workplace inclusion) along with diversity, whereas one article explored inclusive culture of diversity (i.e. Chavez and Weisinger, 2008).

From 2011 to 2017, the number of DEI publications increased significantly. The number of articles on diversity surged, and articles on inclusion, which appeared relatively later than diversity and equity research, also started to increase. Of the 249 articles published in this period, 228 articles focused on diversity: 198 articles focused mainly on diversity, 10 articles discussed diversity along with equity, 18 articles discussed diversity with inclusion, and two articles discussed all DEI topics together. In addition, 30 articles focused on inclusion: 10 articles focused only on inclusion, 18 articles focused on inclusion with the concept of diversity, and two articles focused on inclusion along with diversity and equity. In addition, 23 articles focused on equity: 11 articles focused mainly on equity, whereas 10 articles explored equity with diversity and two articles explored DEI together.

The notable characteristics of research on diversity during this period were a significant increase in the number of publications but also diversified research dimensions. Although gender, age, culture/multinational, and race/ethnicity were still the dominant topics of the research on diversity, the research increasingly approached diversity from different perspectives including disability diversity, social diversity, affective diversity, value diversity, knowledge diversity, learning diversity, psychological diversity, perspective diversity, professional diversity, skill diversity, and temporal diversity. Equity research focused on gender, race/ethnicity, and pay equity, although research examining the general concept of equity (e.g. equity in an organization/workplace, perceived equality, affirmative action) accounted for a large portion of the equity research. Research on inclusion started to focus on inclusion of diverse race/ethnicity, culture, gender, and age. However, some articles on inclusion did not focus on a specific dimension but discussed inclusive climate and inclusive leadership in organizations.

From 2018 to 2022, 285 articles were published in management journals, which is 39.3% of all DEI articles published from 1976 to 2022. Although the number of all publications on diversity, inclusion, and equity soared in phase 4, 78.6% of the articles focused on diversity. Of the 285 articles, 224 articles focused on diversity: 184 articles focused mainly on diversity, 26 articles discussed diversity along with inclusion, seven articles discussed diversity with equity, and seven articles were from the perspective of all DEI. In addition, 85 articles discussed inclusion: 51 articles only discussed inclusion, 26 articles discussed inclusion with diversity, seven articles discussed inclusion from the perspective of DEI, and one article discussed inclusion with the concept of equity. Although research on inclusion appeared later than research on diversity and equity, a focus on inclusion increased greatly during phase 4. In contrast, there was relatively less research on equity than research on diversity and inclusion. During this phase, there were 24 on equity: nine articles focused only on equity, seven articles focused on equity along with diversity, seven articles focused on equity from the perspective of DEI, and one article focused on equity with inclusion.

Among the 224 articles that focused on diversity, the proportion of general/overview articles was the highest (80 articles), followed by articles on the dimensions of gender (47 articles), age (28 articles), race/ethnicity (14 articles), and culture (12 articles). Studies were also frequently conducted in the following order: functional (7 articles), demographic (6 articles), religious (5 articles), cognitive (4 articles), educational (4 articles), and linguistics (3 articles) diversity. New dimensions of diversity were also discussed, including neurodiversity, personality diversity, contract diversity, family/marital diversity, geographical diversity, experience diversity, and protean diversity. In addition, the 56 articles (66%) on inclusion were categorized as overview/general articles, and other articles focused on specific dimensions, such as age (5 articles), culture/multinational, disability, gender (4 articles, respectively), religion, LGBT (2 articles, respectively), and team members’ personal lives (1 article). Of the 23 articles on equity, 13 articles explored equality instead of equity (e.g. Christensen et al., 2021; Janssens and Steyaert, 2019; Ozkazanc-Pan, 2021). We identified 12 general/overview articles on equity that discussed the general concept of equality, equitable norms, and equity sensitivity. In addition to the general/overview articles, eight articles examined equity/equality from the perspective of gender, and three articles explored pay equity in relation to gender, disabilities, and age.

The articles were published in 120 different journals in the management field from 1976 to 2022. Twenty-seven journals published more than 10 articles each (see Table 1). The journal that published the largest number of articles is International Journal of Human Resource Management (51 articles since 2001), followed by Group and Organization Management (34 articles since 1992), Journal of Organizational Behavior (32 articles since 1993), Human Resource Management (28 articles since 1991), Journal of Applied Psychology (28 articles since 1992), Academy of Management Journal (26 articles since 1996), Personnel Review (26 articles since 2000), Human Relations (22 articles since 1988), and Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (20 articles since 2012).

We also examined the work environments in which diversity, equity, and inclusion have been discussed. While the majority of the articles investigated DEI in traditional in-person work settings or did not specify the work settings, 10 articles discussed diversity and inclusion in virtual or geographically dispersed work settings. Of the 10 articles, 9 articles focused on diversity, and 1 article focused on inclusion (e.g. Eisenberg et al., 2021; Kankanhalli et al., 2006; Mihhailova, 2009; Peters and Karren, 2009; Pinjani and Palvia, 2013; Staples and Zhao, 2006; Taras et al., 2019). The articles focusing on virtual or dispersed work settings were published relatively recently, between 2006 and 2021.

We categorized the dimensions of DEI that were discussed in the reviewed articles. Of the 725 articles, 417 articles (57.5%) explored DEI from one or more specific dimensions. The most frequently discussed dimensions were gender (100 articles), age (65 articles), race/ethnicity (64 articles), and culture/multination (57 articles). Other articles explored DEI from various perspectives, including LGBT, cognition, religion, employment, language, expertise, information/knowledge, relationship, and neurodiversity. Table 2 lists the dimensions of DEI discussed in the reviewed articles.

The remaining articles (308 articles, 42.5%) were overview/general articles that did not specify a specific dimension of DEI. The overview articles included review articles such as systematic reviews and meta-analysis and the general articles included conceptual papers and articles discussing the general concepts of DEI. Of the 308 overview/general articles, 242 articles focused only on diversity or diversity together with inclusion and/or equity (39.9% of the 621 diversity-related articles), 73 articles discussed inclusion only or together with diversity and/or equity (60.8% of the 120 inclusion-related articles), and 41 articles explored equity only or equity together with diversity and/or inclusion (55.4% of the 74 equity-related articles).

Although the overview/general articles did not investigate specific dimensions of DEI, each article focused on a specific theme. We identified the six most common themes in the DEI research in the management field by reviewing the overview/general articles: (1) DEI management and practice, (2) perspectives on DEI, (3) team/group diversity, (4) DEI conceptualization, (5) leadership for DEI, and (6) DEI climate (see Table 3).

Articles categorized under the DEI management and practice theme explored concepts, processes, or models of DEI management (e.g. Kramar, 2012), effective diversity management (e.g. Nishii et al., 2018), the impact of DEI management (e.g. Kim et al., 2015; Peretz et al., 2015), and barriers to DEI management (e.g. Dick and Cassell, 2002). Diversity and inclusion management were also investigated in various countries (e.g. Cukier et al., 2017; Haq, 2012; Hennekam et al., 2017; Stringfellow, 2020) and in different cultures (e.g. Kim et al., 2015; Peretz et al., 2015). Diversity and inclusion were also examined in various industries including the public sector (e.g. Jin et al., 2017), tour companies (e.g. Tuan, 2020), and manufacturing companies (e.g. D’Netto et al., 2014). Several articles also investigated various approaches to managing DEI. For example, articles discussed diversity in relation to organizational diversity policies (e.g. Abaker et al., 2019; Jin et al., 2017). Other articles discussed approaches to promoting DEI within organizations, such as organizational development (Allen and Montgomery, 2001), appreciative inquiry (Mallory, 2021), and arts-based inquiry (Page et al., 2014).

Articles under this theme also examined DEI management practices from an HR perspective. Some articles focused on the impacts of HR diversity practices (i.e. Buengeler et al., 2018; Jordan et al., 2019). Other articles focused on attracting applicants to enhance diversity (i.e. Avery, 2003) and inclusion (i.e. Huang et al., 2020) and selecting talents for diversity (i.e. Kandola, 1995). Some articles on diversity training focused on the design and implementation of effective diversity training (i.e. Roberson et al., 2003), diversity training participation (i.e. Kulik et al., 2007), training transfer (i.e. Roberson et al., 2009), and underlying barriers to effective training (i.e. Gebert et al., 2017). Fujimoto and Härtel’s (2017) research also proposed an organizational diversity learning framework that included the conditions for effective behavioral, cognitive, and affective learning. In addition, some articles examined factors associated with diversity training (e.g. Rynes and Rosen, 1995) and the impacts of diversity training on discrimination (i.e. King et al., 2012), differential treatment of others (i.e. Sanchez and Medkik, 2004), and team creativity (i.e. Homan et al., 2015). One article investigated the history and status of diversity training research (i.e. Anand and Winters, 2008).

The articles categorized into perspectives on DEI include the following main topics: (1) perception of DEI, (2) attitudes, mindsets, and traits towards DEI, and (3) DEI discourse. The impacts of perceptions of diversity were explored in various studies, including the impacts of employees’ perceived diversity on employee well-being (Jaiswal and Dyaram, 2020), perceived organizational performance (Blouch and Azeem, 2019), and team/group identification (van Dick et al., 2008). Other articles explored openness to diversity (Hobman et al., 2004), employees’ diversity complexity cognition (Kamps and Engelbrecht, 2011), diversity resistance (Wiggins-Romesburg and Githens, 2018), spillover bias in diversity judgment (Daniels et al., 2017), managers’ perspectives on valuing diversity (Kirton et al., 2016), and HR managers’ attitudes toward diversity (Hennekam and Tahssain-Gay, 2015).

Regarding equity, some articles explored equity sensitivity (e.g. Akan et al., 2009; King and Miles, 1994) and equity preferences (e.g. Miller, 2009). Some articles focused on the factors affecting employees’ perceptions of (in)equity, including pay raises (e.g. Carrell, 1978), self-efficacy beliefs (e.g. VanYperen, 1998), and workgroup membership (e.g. Ambrose and Kulik, 1988). Other articles explored the outcomes of employees’ perceived equity, such as absence and turnover (e.g. Dittrich and Carrell, 1979), and job commitment (e.g. Chou et al., 2013). In addition, articles on perceived inclusion were identified under this theme including the influences of employees’ perceived inclusion on their positive team identity (e.g. Ellemers et al., 2013), performance (e.g. Chen and Tang, 2018), well-being (e.g. Jaiswal and Dyaram, 2020), and self-efficacy at work (e.g. Ng et al., 2022).

Some articles focused on diversity discourse, such as the power of diversity discourse at work (i.e. Zanoni and Janssens, 2015), the effective practice of diversity discourse (i.e. Christiansen and Just, 2012), the assumptions of diversity discourse (i.e. Litvin, 1997), diversity discourse from the perspective of equity/equality (i.e. Cukier et al., 2017; Tomlinson and Schwabenland, 2010), and a bibliometric analysis of diversity, equality, and inclusion discourse (i.e. Oswick and Noon, 2014).

The team/group diversity theme includes two main streams: (1) team, work group, or workforce diversity and (2) top management team (TMT) diversity. About two-thirds of the articles that were classified under this theme explored diversity in teams, workgroups, or the whole workforce. They explored team, work group, or workforce diversity in relation to performance (i.e. Jayne and Dipboye, 2004; Shaw and Barrett-Power, 1998), team effectiveness (i.e. Taras et al., 2019), group decision-making (i.e. Martin-Alcazar et al., 2012), creativity (i.e. Tang and Naumann, 2016), and team learning (i.e. Rupert et al., 2019). Other articles focused on diversity in teams from the perspective of conflict (i.e. Jehn et al., 1999), social tragedy (i.e. Jonsen et al., 2013), interpersonal congruence (i.e. Polzer et al., 2002), person-group fit (i.e. Seong et al., 2015), and group identification (i.e. van Dick et al., 2008).

The other stream of articles dealt with DEI in the top management team. Many articles focused on the impacts of diversity in TMT on strategic change (e.g. Wu et al., 2011), innovation (e.g. Talke et al., 2011), organizational ambidexterity (e.g. Li, 2013, 2014), firm performance (e.g. Díaz-Fernández et al., 2020), and strategic capability (e.g. Jarzabkowski and Searle, 2004). One article suggested using developmental networks as an approach for a more diverse TMT (i.e. Chanland and Murphy, 2018). After Homberg and Bui’s (2013) systematic review analyzed 53 empirical studies on TMT diversity, they were skeptical about the low impact of TMT diversity on performance due to the lack of empirical evidence.

This theme includes a variety of articles that explained and conceptualized DEI from diverse perspectives, such as faultlines (e.g. Homan et al., 2007; Meyer et al., 2015; Rico et al., 2007; Rupert et al., 2016; van Knippenberg et al., 2010), a diversity or inclusion paradox (e.g. Ferdman, 2017; Mease, 2016; Ofori-Dankwa and Julian, 2014), and diversity dilemmas (e.g. Bond and Pyle, 1998). This theme also includes articles focusing on future directions of diversity practices and research (i.e. Ozkazanc-Pan, 2021; Post et al., 2021; Roberson et al., 2017). In addition, articles on methodology investigated how to measure diversity (i.e. Bedeian and Mossholder, 2000; Foster et al., 2023). Articles on equity under this theme discussed the general concept of (in)equity or (in)equality, focusing solely on equity/equality (e.g. Biron and De Reuver, 2013; Bolino and Turnley, 2008; Middlemist and Peterson, 1976; Werner and Mero, 1999) or in association with the concepts of diversity and inclusion (e.g. Cassell et al., 2022; DiTomaso, 2021; Fletcher and Beauregard, 2022; Kornau et al., 2022; Ozkazanc-Pan, 2021).

Leadership was another common theme discussed in the overview/general articles. Inclusive leadership was the most common topic in the overview/general articles as well as in all inclusion studies reviewed in this study. Among the research under the leadership theme, 84.4% examined inclusive leadership (27 out of 32 articles). These articles examined the effects on (1) workplace inclusion or diversity (e.g. Shore and Chung, 2022); (2) performance (e.g. Gong et al., 2021; Xiaotao et al., 2018); (3) employee behavior, attitudes, or psychology, such as employees’ learning from errors (e.g. Ye et al., 2019), employees’ change-related behavior (e.g. Katsaros, 2022), employees being driven to work (e.g. Fatima et al., 2021), knowledge-sharing behavior (e.g. Morinaga et al., 2022), collective voice behavior (e.g. Chen et al., 2021), innovative work behavior (e.g. Javed et al., 2019), and employee’s well-being (e.g. Cao et al., 2022); and (4) team or organizational creativity and innovation (e.g. Leroy et al., 2022). In addition, one article developed and validated a measure for inclusive leadership (Al-Atwi and Al-Hassani, 2021). Besides the articles on leadership focusing on inclusion, a small number of articles examined diversity leadership (Chen and Van Velsor, 1996; Gotsis and Grimani, 2016; Pullen et al., 2021). In those articles, diversity leadership was investigated in relation to inclusion. However, no article focused on leadership for equity.

The majority of the articles under this theme investigated the relationship between climate and outcomes from various perspectives. For instance, articles examined the impacts of diversity climate on the following areas: (1) individual, group, or organizational performance (e.g. Cachat-Rosset et al., 2022); (2) customer satisfaction (e.g. McKay et al., 2011); (3) employees’ attitudes and behaviors, such as retention or turnover intention (e.g. Kaplan et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2021), loyal behavior (e.g. Chung et al., 2015), job pursuit intentions (e.g. Avery et al., 2013), and organizational commitment (e.g. Buttner et al., 2010); (4) employee psychology, such as group identification (e.g. Žnidaršič et al., 2021), identity freedom (e.g. Chrobot-Mason and Aramovich, 2013), and psychological empowerment (e.g. Susuki et al., 2022); and (5) employees’ careers (e.g. Hicks-Clarke and Iles, 2000). In addition to articles examining the relationship between climate and outcomes, some research approached diversity climate from the perspective of organizational change (e.g. Komaki and Minnich, 2016).

Although most articles under this theme focused on diversity climate, several articles focused on inclusion climate. Articles on inclusion climate also examined factors affecting inclusion climate or the outcomes of inclusion climate (e.g. Ali et al., 2022; Wolfgruber et al., 2022). In some articles, inclusion climate was viewed in association with diversity or equity (e.g. Li et al., 2019). Holmes et al.’s (2021) meta-analysis investigated the relationships between diversity climate and outcomes and also discussed climate for diversity and inclusion together. However, no article focused on climate for equity.

This study reviewed the overall trends in DEI research by examining the research streams, publication profiles (number of articles and research focus), publication tendency (journals and years), work environments as one aspect of DEI, and the dimensions of DEI. In early studies, scholars conceptualized DEI and developed related theories to clarify the concepts and scope and to understand different aspects of DEI (e.g. Harrison and Klein, 2007). More recently, scholars have paid more attention to diversity and inclusive climate to highlight the importance of a collective consensus on valuing and implementing DEI in organizations (e.g. Mckay et al., 2011). Diversity management practices have also been discussed as an organizational intervention to contribute to organizational outcomes and effectiveness (see Köllen, 2021; Nishii et al., 2018). Additionally, scholars have examined employees’ perceptions of DEI and individual factors that influence their perceptions to explore different dynamics and interactions among the individual differences and organizational contexts (see Guillaume et al., 2017; Leslie et al., 2020).

In terms of topics, the most frequent and dominate topics over more than 45 years have been diversity only or diversity-related topics, rather than discussing inclusion, equity, or a combination of these areas. More than 80% of the articles have been published in human resource-related journals (42.5%) and management journals (41.1%). In terms of the publication tendency, the research focus has changed over the years. A focus on equity research has greatly diminished. Before 1994 (phase 1), there was no inclusion research, but equity studies (related to pay, sensitivity, and perceptions) were dominant. From 1994 to 2010 (phase 2), the number of diversity studies substantially increased. In the 2010 and 2020s (phases 3 and 4), diversity and inclusion research increased dramatically, but there has been no increase in equity research.

Since scholars have frequently discussed different remote working settings and their influences due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we also considered different work environments (e.g. traditional, remote, and/or virtual work settings) as one aspect of DEI and examined the related topics in the 725 reviewed articles. Only 1.4% (10 articles) discussed virtual work environments or geographically remote work settings in relation to diversity and inclusion. This finding may reflect that (1) scholars do not have a strong awareness of different work environments as a DEI dimension and (2) the selected articles did not fully reflect DEI research trends in various work environments during and right after COVID-19, which included more virtual or remote work settings that were critical for survival.

In light of the dimensions of DEI, the findings indicated that the research focused more on one dimension of DEI for each study (e.g. gender, age, and race) than on integrating multiple dimensions. Because each dimension of DEI may have different causes, influences, and consequences in organizational contexts, it may be difficult for researchers to conduct more integrative research on DEI dimensions. By categorizing the dimensions into multiple levels (e.g. demographics, job-related, and deep levels), scholars may examine the dynamics of each category first and then combine all categories of DEI dimensions to expand their findings and perspectives on DEI. Of the 725 articles, over 300 articles were categorized in the overview/general DEI research. This pattern seems to indicate that researchers have focused on overall diversity management and that practical application is still lacking.

From a scholarly perspective, our review indicated that the current literature seems to focus mostly on the features and characteristics of DEI in the workplace. Scholars have agreed that the complicated dynamics of DEI can lead to different outcomes in the workplace (Bernstein et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019). Thus, our findings provide fundamental information that can lead to further exploration of how the dimensions and components of DEI affect employee and organizational outcomes and how DEI can be influenced by organizational contexts and climate.

Our review also shows the trajectory of DEI research expansion. The results from this scoping review demonstrate that dimensions in DEI studies have expanded from surface-level diversity to broader and deeper diversity since phase 3 (2011–2017). Non-observable diversity includes job-related differences such as education, work experience, and functional background, which diversify people’s ability to work. It also includes deep-level differences such as attitudes, beliefs, and values that can be learned over time through interactions with diverse groups (Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007). This classification was constructed and developed in phase 2 (1994–2010) in team diversity studies (e.g. Milliken and Martins, 1996; Pelled, 1996). However, studies exploring job-related and deep-level diversity as main topics appeared in phase 3.

This topic expansion indicates that the focus of diversity research has moved from social equity to business cases. Surface-level differences that are immediately observable have long been studied as sources of discrimination and inequality. Thus, research and practices have focused on psychological processes such as similarity attraction, stereotyping, and unconscious bias or socially embedded inequality (see DiTomaso, 2021). This early research focused extensively on legal protections and affirmative action as a strategy as well as practices to increase demographic diversity to reach social equity following the introduction of Title VII (Leslie et al., 2014). The focus of diversity research moved to business cases after the Reagan administration launched the concept in the 1980s. Since then, many researchers have explored non-observable diversity as a source of specific skills, innovation, and creativity (Janssens and Zanoni, 2021) through conceptualization (value-in-diversity theory, Cox and Blake, 1991; categorization-elaboration model, Van Knippenberg et al., 2004) and empirical studies (e.g. religious diversity, Gebert et al., 2014; professional diversity, Mitchell et al., 2015; affective diversity, Kouamé et al., 2015).

Diversity dimensions became more diversified in phase 4 (2018–2022) including neurodiversity (Roberson et al., 2021), employment diversity (van den Groenendaal et al., 2023), and religious/faith diversity (Park et al., 2022). This trend indicates that human characteristics can be a diversity dimension even though true differences may not exist. In addition, research on interactions and dynamics between different dimensions blur the historically strong faultlines in organizations, thus strengthening the trend (Leicht-Deobald et al., 2021).

This trend of an expansion in the DEI research is reflected in the number of articles discussing the overall topic of equity, diversity, and inclusion. In the early phase (1976–1993), the majority of published studies focused on equity as a research topic, but the number of articles with this exclusive focus has decreased and research has moved from social equity to business equity cases. Since phase 2 (1994–2010), the majority of DEI research has investigated diversity as the main topic and explored the relationship between diversity and organizational performance (e.g. Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007). This move to a diversity-effectiveness focus again directed researchers’ interest toward inclusion as a way to resolve the mixed results on organizational outcomes (Nishii et al., 2018). Researchers have criticized diversity management that only focuses on increasing demographic diversity, and they have emphasized the importance of organizational culture and climate to maximize positive organizational performance and outcomes among diverse groups (e.g. Holmes et al., 2021).

Given this research trajectory and the current anti-discrimination movements and social events (e.g. Black Lives Matter, #MeToo movement, and COVID-19), a few scholars have called for a resurgence of DEI research and practices that promote social change to address and resolve the root causes including socially and historically embedded inequality in the workplace (see Post et al., 2021). Our review could help researchers develop theoretical links to DEI research. For instance, social inclusion theory can be adopted to discuss technology and education (Baker and Sibona, 2022; Byrne, 1999), which are some of the DEI dimensions identified in this study. The dimensions of uniqueness, belongingness, and fairness in diversity and inclusive climate (Nishii, 2013; Shore et al., 2011) can be applied to address the multiple characteristics of DEI (e.g. gender, age, race, and values) in work groups and organizational contexts. These theoretical connections could help scholars develop research questions for further research such as what theory can be adopted to discuss DEI in research and practice, and what components could be added to inclusive/diversity climate dimensions (uniqueness, belongingness, and fairness) in DEI research.

Our findings reveal the emerging topics and dimensions in the field. For example, since the pandemic hit in 2020 and flexible work arrangements became the new normal, the number of studies focusing on virtual, remote, and hybrid work settings has dramatically increased in the management field (e.g. Klonek et al., 2022; Shockley et al., 2021; Straus et al., 2022). This pattern of remote work is evident in DEI studies as researchers have started to discuss diversity and inclusion in virtual and hybrid work settings (Eisenberg et al., 2021; Farh et al., 2021). In addition, this literature review indicates that the scope of diversity has expanded from demographic diversity to deep-level diversity such as employees’ attitudes, personalities, and values (Triana et al., 2021). Our findings can help researchers expand their perspectives on DEI research by examining new dimensions of diversity such as neurodiversity, contract diversity, marital diversity, and other emerging topics in recent studies and general DEI research.

Based on the findings of this study, we suggest research questions for further investigation: (1) What are the similarities and differences of DEI research themes and trends in management and other fields? (2) What characteristics of work environments are needed to improve the quality of DEI in the workplace? (3) What interventions will improve the level of diversity management and lead to better DEI practices? (4) What individual characteristics need to be considered to discuss deep-level diversity in the workplace? (5) What organizational and managerial support should be provided to support employees’ new dimensions of diversity (e.g. neurodiversity and marital diversity)? and (6) What key antecedents and outcomes of DEI in the workplace have previous studies identified?

From a practice perspective, our findings help practitioners better understand the contexts of DEI to improve work practices in their organizations. By reexamining their DEI-related projects, policies, and work routines, practitioners can identify what should be discarded or adopted to adapt to situations that need to change. By collaborating with employees, practitioners could collect and develop multiple cases that include critical information. For example, organizations should collaboratively identify important preconditions, antecedents, barriers, and challenges to implement DEI initiatives and work toward better DEI outcomes.

Based on our findings, practitioners could further explore their roles in promoting the dimensions and components of DEI, such as diversity management, diversity training, inclusive climate, and inclusive leadership. To implement diversity management and diversity training in the workplace, practitioners could prepare practical guidelines and manuals to facilitate management and training processes based on their employees’ characteristics and organizational contexts. To promote inclusive climate and inclusive leadership, practitioners could work with leaders and managers to discuss detailed plans and considerations, taking into account DEI organizational readiness, employees’ awareness, and recognition.

There are several limitations in this study. First, this study selected and reviewed 725 studies that included the search terms in the titles, abstracts, and keywords. This approach allowed us to review a large amount of research related to our interest, but it also hindered us from reviewing articles that did not meet the search criteria, even if articles covered our topic of interest. In addition, since our study conducted a scoping review of 725 articles, a detailed analysis of the content or context (e.g. country or industry type) was not performed. Second, we included only articles published in management-related journals indexed in the SSCI from the Web of Science database. Thus, limiting the fields, journal indexes, and databases might have affected our results, and some important studies on DEI might have been excluded from our review. Third, chronological publication trends, DEI dimensions, and common themes in the general/overview research examined in this study could be different based on each researcher’s perspective and positioning. Lastly, although this study did not conduct a detailed analysis of publication countries, we observed that many studies were conducted within the contexts of specific countries (e.g. the United States), while few or no papers were from certain regions (e.g. Southeast Asia or Africa). Since this study aims to review overall trends in DEI studies, DEI insights from countries with many papers might be overrepresented, whereas those from countries with few or no papers included in our review might be relatively neglected.

In future studies, various research methods (e.g. meta-analysis, bibliometric analysis, and content analysis) could be adopted to expand the current findings and compare them with our results. In addition, analyzing papers published across various disciplines, including those from other indexes and databases could provide more comprehensive insights into DEI. Further studies could identify different antecedents and outcomes of DEI by further analyzing empirical research. The specific context of each study could be analyzed in more detail to understand different situations and settings related to DEI-oriented projects, policies, and environments. By comparing the DEI findings in different fields and cultural contexts, future studies could explore how disciplinary and cultural differences affect DEI practices. Additionally, future research could explore emerging issues in recent studies by tracking the origin and research streams, comparing them with previous research trends, and identifying a more specific future DEI research agenda.