Title: Threat Matching: A Model for Tailoring Diversity Approaches to Context

Abstract: We integrate social psychological and organizational scholarship to devise the threat matching model, a contingency theory that illustrates when, how, and why diversity approaches—ideologies leaders espouse to guide employees’ understanding of and response to diversity—promote inclusiveness. We theorize that two types of diversity approaches, the value in difference approach (which focuses on the importance of social group differences) and the value in equality approach (which focuses on the importance of equality irrespective of differences), can each be effective, but only when they match employees’ experience of stigmatization threat, and corresponding psychological needs underlying feelings of inclusion. We propose that the value in equality approach is most effective when the threat of stigmatization is high because it satisfies employees’ foundational desire to belong and be accepted as an insider, whereas that the value in difference approach is most effective when threat is low because it satisfies employees’ desire to be respected for the unique characteristics they contribute. Our model theorizes a two-step hierarchical progression guiding leaders’ efforts to promote feelings of inclusion vis-à-vis diversity approaches. This model fruitfully bridges literatures, substantively extends existing theory on diversity, inclusion, and intergroup relations, and critically informs leaders’ efforts to promote inclusion at work and beyond.