According to the research, individuals are generally more attracted to those similar to themselves, and they tend to communicate better with them. As a reflection of this, they work more harmoniously (O’Reilly et al., 1989), experience less relationship conflict (Jehn et al., 1999), have a lower turnover rate, and feel more loyalty to their organizations (Tsui et al., 1992). On the contrary, people are less attracted to “others” who are not like themselves and they display difficulty in communicating with dissimilar others (Triandis, 1959), and this experience of difference creates a negative reinforcement in relationships (Martins et al., 2003). In other words, individuals do not trust those they see as different from themselves (Blalock, 1967). Moreover, as the workforce diversity increases over social identity categories such as gender, race, ethnicity, and age, some psychological barriers may arise between the social interactions of different groups (Blalock, 1967; Kamasak et al., 2019). These barriers can be a significant threat that can lead to other problems within the organization. Therefore, according to the principle of social similarity, it is stated that when people are given a free choice, they tend to work and establish relationships with people who are similar to them (Tsui and O’Reilly, 1989; Martins et al., 2003). Of course, organizations can choose to let or not let workforce diversity enter the organization for various reasons (see Ely and Thomas, 2001). However, economic, political, and social developments trigger heterogeneity and greater diversity. In this case, a lack of competencies to understand and craft diversity works causes problems. Ignoring diversity and individual differences in business and management can pose a serious threat to individual rights and the social order and harmony at work. Therefore, organizations try to engage in diversity works to overcome diversity challenges and accrue organizational benefits.

Managing diversity is complicated by social identities, which color individuals’ judgment of their competencies compared with their in-group and out-group members (e.g., O’Reilly et al., 1989). Therefore, we think that the social identity approach, which explores in-group and out-group perceptions and behaviors, offers a helpful theoretical lens through which we can examine the differences between people who feel a sense of belonging and those who feel a sense of otherness in terms of their perceptions of diversity work issues at work. Social identity approaches imply that perceptions, thoughts, and behaviors of one’s personal identity are different from one’s social identity, which emerges in their association with a social group (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). This means that differences in opinions come to the fore, especially in certain contexts where individuals define themselves through belonging to a group. In other words, social divisions occur in situations where individuals are influenced by their social identities. When people perceive themselves as members of a group, they simultaneously think and act differently from their personal identities (Avanzi et al., 2021). While individuals are likely to favor members of their in-groups above and beyond members of out-groups in their social interactions, the formation of social identity along with gender, ethnicity, or other demographic lines could lead to negative consequences such as ethnocentrism, mutual influence, shared norms, groupthink, normative behavior, emotional contagion, and stereotyping (Hogg and Terry, 2000).

This process also runs in organizational contexts. Identifying themselves with a social group (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, etc.), people can classify themselves with their career (personal level), with their team or department (group level), or with their whole organization as a specific form of social identification (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Van Dick and Wagner, 2002). This kind of self-categorization causes depersonalization in which individuals represent the relevant group prototype above and beyond their personal identity (Hogg and Terry, 2000). The main reason for this situation is the motivation to get rid of uncertainty and to have positive self-esteem by gaining a place in reality. Since having a positive self-esteem derives partly from individuals’ social identity, people tend to attribute more positive traits to their in-group than out-group (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). In other words, people must perceive their in-group as superior to out-group to feel better.

Consequently, this situation causes indifference to injustices against the out-group members and discrimination against them (Tajfel et al., 1971). This is particularly important for our study, as diversity works attempt to remedy the historical inequalities that haunt workforces. Individuals from historically disenfranchised groups such as women and minority ethnic groups are likely to be more interested in what diversity works could offer them. However, individuals from dominant in-groups in society are more likely to be disinterested in diversity works.

How identification affects job satisfaction, job involvement, extra-role behaviors, and turnover intention can be seen in some meta-analyses (Riketta, 2005; Lee et al., 2015; Steffens et al., 2017). However, such studies are not concerned with belonging and otherness and concern for or indifference to diversity works. In brief, individuals’ perception is influenced by their social identities in the way that individuals act in the interests of their groups, do not accept criticism from their group, consciously or unconsciously hold their group members in a more advantageous position, and do not see the injustices done to others (Mergen and Ozbilgin, 2021). Therefore, we think that when the context is diversity works, the perception of those who feel a sense of belonging and otherness may be somewhat different. We examined two salient aspects of the social identity approach, i.e., in-group (with a sense of belonging) and out-group (with a sense of otherness) responses to diversity works across the following four dimensions: (1) opinions on the competence of diversity actors, (2) opinions on the embeddedness of diversity works into the organizational policies/practices, (3) opinions on diversity awareness in the HRM activities, and (4) opinions on diversity-related employee satisfaction. We selected these dimensions to cover employees’ opinions, observations, experiences, and perceptions regarding organizational attempts to manage diversity. Even though categories such as gender, ethnicity, and disability still dominate diversity works (see Sinicropi and Cortese, 2021; Triana et al., 2021), because of universally accepted human rights values, diversity works are more profound when it considers the intersections between diverse groups and power relations (Tatli and Özbilgin, 2012; Köllen, 2021). Therefore, in the case of our paper, we examine the feelings of belonging and otherness, rather than picking any particular category of diversity, to mobilize the social identity approach.

The relevant competence of diversity actors, who assume responsibility for implementing diversity-related activities, is a necessary condition for the effective implementation of diversity interventions (Riccò and Guerci, 2014; Carstens and De Kock, 2017; Dang et al., 2022). The support, pioneering, and leadership of the senior management, as significant diversity actors, are considered prerequisites for the successful implementation of practices within the scope of diversity management in an organization (Herrera et al., 2011; Ng et al., 2020). If the senior management cannot be sufficiently competent and well versed in managing diversity, the scope of activities to be carried out in this context (Ng and Burke, 2005; Dang et al., 2022) and the level of adoption and acceptance of the activities attempted to be carried out would be low (Ng and Wyrick, 2011; Carrillo Arciniega, 2021). It is essential to examine whether there are any differences in opinion about the competence of diversity actors between in-group and out-group members.

On the contrary, although the most significant responsibility for paying attention to diversity within the organization and the implementation of the programs created within this scope belongs to the senior management, for this understanding to spread within the organization, both HRM unit managers and other managers must assume responsibility (Pitts et al., 2010; Riccò and Guerci, 2014; Mullins, 2018). To manage diversity effectively, all employees in the organization should be included in the process, and they should carry out the operation together (Kalev et al., 2006; Shen et al., 2009; Palalar Alkan et al., 2022). If this can be achieved, the organization’s strategic-, tactical-, and operational-level practices could be harmonized to achieve diversity goals, which may lead to both an increase in the scope of diversity management and an increase in the benefit obtained from the activities. If so, to increase the practices within the range of diversity works within the organization, especially the groups responsible for this should have enough knowledge of workforce diversity and its management. As the knowledge level of the responsible persons on the subject increases, it will be easier to understand the relevant diversity issues among employees. Consequently, the scope of the diversity factors taken into account in organizational practices will naturally expand. According to social identity approaches, individuals do not accept the negative evaluations of their group because these evaluations of their group are perceived as their own. Relatedly, it can be said that even if the diversity actors would not be competent enough, those who feel a sense of belonging will perceive them as competent. Therefore, we can predict that individuals who feel a sense of belonging would be less likely to problematize the competence of the diversity actors, as their interests would be aligned with those of their organizations. Therefore, in Hypothesis 1, we question whether the people who feel a sense of belonging and those who feel a sense of otherness have different perceptions of the competence of diversity actors at work.

Although some relationships are mentioned (e.g., Ely and Thomas, 2001; Point and Singh, 2003; Ward et al., 2022), there is no clarity about the causal relationship between accepting, adopting, and managing diversity and individual, group, and organizational benefits (Kellough and Naff, 2004; Pitts et al., 2010; Yadav and Lenka, 2020). But simply complying with established quotas and government regulations does not mean managing diversity effectively (Syed and Ozbilgin, 2019). Accepting and managing diversity within the organization is, in a sense, a significant effort to imagine and support a workplace that recognizes and accommodates differences (Friday and Friday, 2003; Acar, 2010; Berrey, 2014). For this reason, for diversity to be accepted within the organization and to make the necessary arrangements, diversity considerations must be systematically incorporated into the organizational strategies and general policies (Davis et al., 2016; Calvard, 2020). Additionally, fostering a climate of inclusion is essential to achieve diversity goals (Mor Barak et al., 2016). Although developments in this area differ according to institutional contexts, studies (see Riccò and Guerci, 2014) state that activities within the scope of managing diversity are often managed without realizing that they should be a part of the organization’s basic strategies and policies. Unless it is transformed into a part of the organization’s strategy and policies, it will not be easy to develop the activities carried out within the scope of managing the diversity in the workforce to meet the expectations of all parties. Social identity approaches posit that individuals who feel a sense of belonging in organizations are more likely to have their interests aligned with the strategies and practices of their organizations.

Working together with people with different characteristics in certain respects is not a guarantee of effective management of diversity (Sartori et al., 2022). It is necessary to create supportive cultures that will consider all stakeholders’ concerns, including employees from underrepresented backgrounds (Nadarajah et al., 2022). For this to be achieved, there is a need for management practices (Ehrke et al., 2014; Roberson, 2019) and inclusive functions for all employees (Geiger and Jordan, 2014; Roberson and Perry, 2021) that can make people work together in harmony. In many studies (e.g., Pitts, 2006; D’Netto et al., 2014; Berger et al., 2016), it is stated that diversity can only be managed through the HRM activities of the organization. According to some studies, organizations that became aware of this situation started to change their HRM practices by the end of the 1990s (Kemper et al., 2016) and diversity management has become an increasingly important part of HRM in organizations (Davis et al., 2016). Indeed, workforce diversity is one of the main challenges in HRM (Showkat and Misra, 2022).

For this reason, examining diversity awareness in the HRM functions is relevant. To keep justice and impartiality, to be liable to the needs of different people, and to offer equal opportunities through the HRM functions are critical to see the commitment of HRM departments to diversity. Reflecting on the idea of social identity approaches, individuals act to keep their group interests superior to those of the other group to perceive their group in a better position to maintain a positive self-image. Conversely, they behave in such a way that keeps other group members in a disadvantaged position (Tajfel et al., 1971; Schneider and Northcraft, 1999; Kramar and Jepsen, 2021), so that we can predict that individuals who feel a sense of belonging at work would not find the diversity awareness of the HRM function inadequate as they would not view diversity interventions as relevant or necessary for their belonging at work. We formed Hypothesis 3 to understand the difference between the employees’ opinions on the issues of fair and impartial conduct of the processes carried out in organizations within the scope of HRM, creating sensitivity to differences and realizing them in a way that ensures equal opportunities.

When employees’ individual identities are salient and they identify with their career, their behaviors and attitudes will be influenced by personal characteristics. On the contrary, if an employee perceives themselves as a member of a team, department, or organization (when the group-team identity is salient), their behaviors and attitudes will be affected by those social ties (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). There are findings that diversity reduces job satisfaction (e.g., Choi, 2013) and employee satisfaction, which refers to the extent to which employees are satisfied with their job in general or the specific facets of the job within the organization (Dineen et al., 2007), and hurts the psychology of employees in general (Taras et al., 2019). However, as highlighted in studies examining the positive relationship between diversity climate, diversity training, trust, and turnover (e.g., Ward et al., 2022, Zhang and McGuire, 2022), the adverse effects of diversity can be compensated for if managed (Stazyk et al., 2012; Showkat and Misra, 2022) and employee satisfaction levels can increase (Pitts, 2009); minority employees may accrue benefits from diversity management activities (Pitts, 2009; Ward et al., 2022). Some studies (e.g., Memon et al., 2021) indicate that the level of employee satisfaction with the HRM practices has a significant effect on the overall satisfaction level of employees.

According to current research, people’s experiences with events shape their responses within the organization (see Bond and Haynes, 2014). In this case, employees (those who feel a sense of otherness) who indicate dissatisfaction with the HRM practices in terms of managing diversities, that is, those who have low levels of satisfaction in this regard, will naturally have low levels of overall satisfaction. However, there are studies that have found that the satisfaction levels of different groups among employees will be different (e.g., Tsui et al., 1992; Küskü, 2001, 2003), and the availability of studies that emphasize the satisfaction level of those who feel a sense of belonging and otherness is restricted. Social identity approaches imply that when an individual perceives themselves as a member of an organization, they will get a high level of satisfaction because satisfaction is more likely associated with the relationship with the other members of the group (Leach et al., 2008). The more individuals identify with their organization, the more personnel are satisfied and the more job satisfaction (Van Dick et al., 2006). Therefore, it made sense to us to construct Hypothesis 4.

Although the middle managers and direct supervisors also have roles, people working in the top management and HRM units of the organizations have the primary responsibility for decisions on and practices of diversity management. Therefore, we focused only on those who work in the top management and HRM units as actors in the diversity issue. The competence of diversity actors was measured with two items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.848). Items measure to what extent they are perceived knowledgeable on diversity management practices (items: Our organization’s top managers have adequate knowledge of managing diversities. HRM employees of our organization have adequate knowledge of managing diversities).

To understand the extent to which employees perceive that diversity works are incorporated into business practices, we used eight items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.937) based on prior research (e.g., Pitts, 2006; Choi and Rainey, 2010; Herrera et al., 2011; Sabharwal, 2014) on the embeddedness of diversity (e.g., item: Diversity management practices are integrated into the organizational policies and strategies).

We measured the opinions on diversity awareness in the HRM functions (recruitment, promotion, training, career development, and appraising performance and compensation) based on three dimensions as follows: (1) justice and impartiality (six items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.919; e.g., Training procedures and policies are conducted fairly and impartially for all employees in our organization), (2) sensitivity to the needs of a diverse workforce (six items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.918; e.g., Training procedures and policies are generated based on the needs of diversified people in our organization), and (3) equal opportunity (six items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.884; e.g., Training opportunities for diversified people were restricted in our organization). These items were adopted from Brinkman’s (1992) items related to recruitment, promotion, and training. One item from the “equal opportunity” dimension was removed to enhance explained variance and make it clearer (omitted item: Performance of diversified employees was measured based on the same indicators with other employees).

This dimension was measured based on four items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.904). Items question to what extent employees are satisfied with studying in the organization and HRM practices of the organization. Additionally, suggested organization for “acquaintances” and “acquaintances who are diverse” were other questions respondents answered (items: 1—In general, I am satisfied with the Human Resource Management activities in the organization I work for; 2—All things considered, I am generally satisfied with working for this organization; 3—I recommend all my acquaintances to work in this organization; and 4—I recommend all my acquaintances who are atypical to work in this organization).

The results of an independent sample t-test indicated that Levene’s test for equality of variances showed no violations, p = 0.12. Employees “who feel a sense of otherness” assessed diversity works of their organization and harmonization of these practices with the general organizational policies relatively weaker (M = 2.63, SD = 0.97) than employees “who feel a sense of belonging” (M = 2.85, SD = 0.91). Hypothesis 2 is supported based on the significance of the difference between the groups [t₍₆₀₇₎ = 2.80; p < 0.005, Cohen’s d = 0.23]. This finding can be a sign that employees tend to support the decisions and priorities of those in the same group. Decisions and priorities to integrate diversity works into the organizational policies may be raised by employees who feel a sense of belonging. On the contrary, to what extent organizations have a diverse workforce, their attempts will be questioned as long as diversity works are embedded into the organizational policies/practices to meet the demands and priorities of people in the “out-group.”

Justice and impartiality, sensitivity to the needs of diverse people, and equal opportunity are prominent indicators of diversity awareness in the HRM functions. The results of Levene’s test for equality of variances showed violations, p = 0.01. The test statistics of equal variances not assumed showed that employees “who feel a sense of otherness” evaluated justice and impartiality in HRM functions (M = 2.95, SD = 1.04) less than employees “who feel a sense of belonging” (M = 3.42, SD = 0.95). The significant difference between the two groups supported Hypothesis 3a [t_(591.86) = 6.30; p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.47]. A sensitivity to the needs of people from diverse backgrounds in HRM functions was another dimension. Similarly, the results of Levene’s test for equality of variances showed violations, p = 0.03. The test statistics of equal variances not assumed showed a difference between the opinions of employees “who feel a sense of otherness” (M = 3.02, SD = 0.95) and “who feel a sense of belonging” (M = 3.36, SD = 0.89). Based on the t-test result, Hypothesis 3b is supported [t_(587.03) = 4.82; p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.37]. Organizational attempts to provide equal opportunity in HRM functions were perceived relatively lower by those who feel a sense of otherness (M = 3.05, SD = 0.96) compared with those who feel a sense of belonging (M = 3.41, SD = 0.85). Hypothesis 3c is supported [t_(558.17) = 5.11; p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.40]. The results of Levene’s test for equality of variances showed violations for this dimension, p = 0.000. According to the analysis of these three hypotheses, employees who feel a sense of otherness evaluate justice and impartiality, sensitivity to the needs of diverse people, and equal opportunity in HRM functions weaker. Diversity actors who are the formulator and practitioners of diversity works may give more voice to employees who feel a sense of otherness to make the HRM functions comply with the principles such as equality, fairness, and justice.

In general, diversity-related satisfaction levels of employees who feel a sense of belonging were higher (M = 3.53, SD = 0.90) than those of employees who feel a sense of otherness (M = 3.09, SD = 1.07) in the organization. Because of a significant difference between the satisfaction levels of the two groups, Hypothesis 4 is supported [t_(577.08) = 5.87; p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.44]. The results of Levene’s test for equality of variances showed violations, p = 0.000. The indifference of individuals to diversity issues in the context of the limited provision of diversity works confronts organizations with the adverse effects of a lack of job satisfaction among employees.