“A women security agent explains that in her previous job in a restaurant, she experienced much more racism and sexism than at the airport security company: ‘That is because there was a very explicit division of labor – men work in the kitchen, women work as waitresses. So, whenever a woman entered the kitchen that was filled with men, she became very visible and would often receive sexist comments. In here, that is absolutely not the case.’ This is because all security agents must rotate their positions on the security line.” (Field notes) 

Summary 

Inclusion is often framed as a matter of “hearts and minds”: if people overcome bias, organizations become more inclusive. Our case study of an airport security company shows something different: the way work is performed can itself foster inclusion. Task rotation, collective responsibility, and recognition of individual contributions lead to everyday practices that produce inclusion experiences from within organizational processes, rather than as an add-on to them. 

Organizational Inclusion – Where is the Debate? 

The common understanding of inclusion implies feeling valued in a work group without facing pressure to assimilate to dominant norms. What is less clear is how inclusion is established. Current interventions view inclusion primarily as an HR management or relationship-building task, while work itself is seen as passive, neutral backdrop. However, critical diversity and sociological research has already pointed out that work activities are not neutral but play a key role in producing inequalities in organizations. We deem also the opposite link to be accurate: that the performance of work activities could play a crucial role in establishing an inclusive organization. 

The Case Study: Airport Security Work 

To investigate this relationship between work activities and inclusion, we conducted a case study of an airport security company. The company stood out for its heterogeneous workforce in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and education, and its appreciation of traditionally feminine-typed skills such as hospitality. To understand how security agents carried out their work activities, a member of the research team conducted ethnographic fieldwork on the security lines, sat in the breakroom with other security agents and participated in trainings on terrorism or passenger hospitality. Interviews with managers of the airport security company and the analysis of company documents and online data (e.g., internal platform) enriched the observations. 

The Findings: How “Doing the Work” leads to Inclusion Experiences 

Our study revealed that the work activities were carried out toward two specific ends: ensuring safety and expressing hospitality. The enactment of work activities was reliant on its discursive articulation, human embodiment and support through material arrangements. In their entanglement, they constituted what we describe as “a horizon of intelligible actions”. Such a horizon signaled which doings and sayings made sense for the security agents to enact and – importantly – also resulted in inclusionary (and exclusionary effects). We briefly illustrate these emerging inclusionary effects: 

• Formation of a Collective: Security agents felt a strong connection with their colleagues, working together as a cohesive team. For instance, in security trainings the security agents were reminded of the omnipresence of external threats and their mutual dependence on addressing them effectively. Additionally, wearing a uniform not only allowed the security agents to immediately recognize each other as “one of them” but also worked as a buffer between them and the outside world. Finally, the spatial layout of the conveyer belt allowed the security agents to witness/experience the interdependence of their different work activities. Taken together, it made sense for security agents to help each other out and orientate their work pace toward the other – resulting in the inclusionary effect of the formation of a collective. 

• Recognition of Individual Contribution: Individual contributions of security agents were recognized and valued. For instance, security agents were acknowledged for making use of their different language skills when interacting with travelers; they worked “with their bodies” by exhibiting friendly facial expressions, welcoming postures and signaling attentiveness to passengers’ needs; some security agents were allowed to wear a “hospitality pin” on their otherwise plain uniform – an award from management for exceptional hospitality. Taken together, it made sense for the security agents to help each other out (with different language skills) or trust each other when deviating from standard protocol to orientate to passengers’ needs – resulting in the inclusionary effect of the recognition of individual contribution. 

• Emergence of Egalitarian Relationships: Distinctions based on gender, ethnicity, age or education seemed to be of little relevance – security agents experienced each other as equally capable of performing airport security work. For instance, operating the X-ray machine required such a high level of concentration that security agents were legally limited to performing this task for only 20 minutes at a time. This necessitated a rotation system combined with a need for constant technological upgrading. Taken together, it made sense for security agents to interact with each other on eye level as informal hierarchies due to differences in work experience were unlikely to emerge. 

How does this matter for Organizational Inclusion Approaches?  

Next to a theoretical contribution on the role of work activities for establishing inclusive organizations, this study opens up a whole new avenue for inclusion interventions. Currently, the widely shared assumption is that in order to establish an inclusive organization, people need to first and foremost fight their own biases to end discrimination and inequality.  

We propose a different angle: to examine the inclusionary and exclusionary effects that emerge while carrying out work activities and to potentially intervene in how this enactment of work-related goals takes place. For instance, the end of safety established a space in which it made sense to help each other out or synchronize one’s actions to those of colleagues, “naturally” leading to the formation of a collective. Similarly, the end of hospitality constituted a space in which it was desirable to perform (cis) “feminized” ways of greetings and directing travelers, “naturally” de-emphasizing hypermasculinity.  

Instead of organizing the next anti-bias training, practitioners could ask:  

• Can task rotation reduce cliques and hierarchies? 

• How can the interdependence of tasks be made visible? 

• What material or spatial setups best support collaboration across groups? 

Rethinking inclusion (efforts) means rethinking work itself – because how we organize everyday tasks may be the most powerful lever for change.