What Questions Should Be on a Diversity & Inclusion Survey?

Belongingness subscale of the Work Group Inclusion Scale (Chung et al. 2020). Measures whether employees feel they fit and are accepted in their immediate work group. Attribution required; seek author permission before commercial deployment.

1. 1.

   I belong in my work group.

   Work Group Inclusion Scale, Chung et al. (2020)

   Core belongingness anchor item from the WGIS. The most direct measure of felt inclusion in the proximate team — action is most feasible at the team level.

2. 2.

   I am connected to the people in my work group.

   Work Group Inclusion Scale, Chung et al. (2020)

   Captures relational bond quality, distinct from mere role acceptance. Low scores here alongside a higher belonging score indicate surface-level, not deep, inclusion.

3. 3.

   I believe that my work group is where I am meant to be.

   Work Group Inclusion Scale, Chung et al. (2020)

   Taps a subjective sense of rightfulness and fit — a signal that the employee sees themselves as a natural, legitimate member rather than a tolerated outsider.

4. 4.

   People in my work group listen to me even when my views are different from theirs.

   Work Group Inclusion Scale, Chung et al. (2020)

   The WGIS belongingness item most sensitive to dissenting-voice dynamics. A low score on this item while overall belonging scores are moderate signals performative — not genuine — inclusion.

5. 5.

   I feel like a valued member of my team.

   Work Group Inclusion Scale, Chung et al. (2020)

   Bridges belongingness and uniqueness constructs; a useful complementary item that flags whether felt acceptance translates into perceived contribution value.

6. 6.

   My team treats everyone fairly, regardless of their background.

   Work Group Inclusion Scale, Chung et al. (2020)

   Equity-of-treatment item. Scores tend to diverge sharply by demographic segment — the gap itself is diagnostic: if majority-group members score 4.2 and minority-group members score 3.1, that 1.1-point gap is the data that drives action.

Uniqueness subscale of the Work Group Inclusion Scale (Chung et al. 2020). Measures whether employees' distinct perspectives and differences are recognized and valued — the complement to belongingness in the full inclusion construct.

1. 1.

   My work group values the distinct perspective I bring.

   Work Group Inclusion Scale, Chung et al. (2020)

   Uniqueness anchor item. Inclusion theory distinguishes groups where people are accepted only when they conform (high belonging, low uniqueness — assimilation) from genuinely inclusive groups (both high). This item isolates that second dimension.

2. 2.

   I am able to express my authentic self at work without fear of negative consequences.

   Work Group Inclusion Scale, Chung et al. (2020)

   Authenticity expression is the behavioral indicator of the uniqueness construct. A gap between this item and the belongingness score reveals assimilation pressure — people feel they belong only by hiding parts of themselves.

3. 3.

   My differences from others in my team are treated as a strength, not a problem.

   Work Group Inclusion Scale, Chung et al. (2020)

   Flips the uniqueness framing from value-add to risk-free differentiation. Scores below 3.5 here are a leading indicator of code-switching burden and identity concealment.

4. 4.

   When I share an idea or point of view that is different from the majority, it is taken seriously.

   Work Group Inclusion Scale, Chung et al. (2020)

   Operationalizes whether uniqueness is merely tolerated or genuinely leveraged. Triangulate this against the listen-when-views-differ item in Group 1 — a matched low score confirms systemic voice suppression, not a single bad meeting.

Compiled best-practice items (QSET-020). These are NOT from a named validated instrument — do not present them as such. They measure the organizational-level inclusion climate and psychological safety that surrounds the team-level WGIS items.

1. 1.

   I can be myself at work.

   QSET-020 compiled

   The most frequently benchmarked inclusion item in practitioner surveys. Keep it here — rooted in the individual experience — and use it to contextualize the WGIS uniqueness scores above.

2. 2.

   My contributions are valued regardless of my background.

   QSET-020 compiled

   Equity-of-contribution item. Useful for cross-group comparison: if contribution value varies significantly by race, gender, or tenure segment, that signals a specific process problem (credit attribution, visibility) rather than a climate problem.

3. 3.

   I feel comfortable speaking up about concerns or ideas without fear of retaliation.

   QSET-020 compiled

   Psychological safety in the inclusion context — comfort speaking up is specifically about identity-related concerns, not just work-process feedback. Low scores here predict concealed problems that surface only in exit interviews.

4. 4.

   Our organization is genuinely committed to diversity and inclusion — not just in words.

   QSET-020 compiled

   The 'not just in words' qualifier is intentional: it forces respondents past performative agreement and captures the credibility of DEI commitment. Low scores on this item despite stated DEI programs signal an implementation gap.

5. 5.

   I have witnessed or experienced exclusionary behavior at work in the past six months.

   Yes / NoQSET-020 compiled

   Prevalence screen for exclusionary incidents. Use yes-no rather than agreement scale to get a clean incidence count; follow with an open-end for context. Flag: incidents are underreported in confidential surveys — treat 'yes' responses as a floor, not a ceiling.

6. 6.

   What is one thing our organization could do to make everyone feel more included? (Optional)

   Open textQSET-020 compiled

   Open-end captures the specific, actionable changes that quantitative scores cannot surface. Mark optional — mandatory open-ends on sensitive identity topics suppress response rates and reduce data quality.

Compiled items measuring whether DEI commitment is visible, resourced, and embedded in day-to-day decisions. Distinct from team-level inclusion — these questions address what the organization does, not how the team behaves.

1. 1.

   Leaders in our organization model inclusive behaviors visibly.

   QSET-020 compiled

   Leadership visibility is the strongest predictor of whether DEI programs translate into culture. Employees calibrate the credibility of any stated commitment against what they observe leaders doing.

2. 2.

   Our hiring and promotion processes are fair and free from bias.

   QSET-020 compiled

   Process-fairness item. Often the highest-disparity item by demographic group — a gap between majority and minority perceptions of hiring/promotion fairness is diagnostic of where systemic barriers sit.

3. 3.

   I am aware of the resources available to support diversity and inclusion at our organization.

   QSET-020 compiled

   Awareness item that surfaces a comms problem masquerading as a DEI problem. If most employees can't name a DEI resource, the gap isn't belonging — it's communication.

4. 4.

   I feel represented in leadership — I can see people like me at senior levels.

   QSET-020 compiled

   Representation perception. Analyze by demographic segment: low scores within a specific group point to specific pipeline gaps, not general culture issues. Suppress any segment below n ≥ 5 before reporting.

Short voluntary demographic and data-quality items. These are NOT scored — they are the segmentation keys that make every other group's data actionable. Apply the Rule of 5: suppress any group cell below n ≥ 5 before reporting results.

1. 1.

   Which of the following best describes your gender identity? (Optional, select all that apply — or prefer not to say)

   QSET-020 compiled

   Voluntary, inclusive framing reduces non-response bias. 'Prefer not to say' is a legitimate response, not missing data — track the opt-out rate; a high rate signals trust issues worth addressing before the next survey cycle.

2. 2.

   How long have you been with the organization? (Under 1 year / 1–3 years / 3–5 years / 5+ years)

   QSET-020 compiled

   Tenure is a critical DEI segmentation variable: newer employees often report lower belonging, and the slope of belonging gain over time reveals whether onboarding and early culture exposure are working.

3. 3.

   How confident are you that your responses to this survey are confidential? (Not at all / Somewhat / Very / Completely)

   QSET-020 compiled

   Trust-in-process item. Low confidence scores in a specific demographic group predict underreporting from that group — a bias that will distort every other result. Treat this as a data-quality diagnostic, not just a sentiment question.

4. 4.

   Is there anything else you would like us to know about your experience of inclusion at work? (Optional)

   Open textQSET-020 compiled

   Catch-all open-end at the survey close. Place this last to avoid anchoring earlier quantitative responses. Thematic coding of these responses often surfaces the highest-specificity action items.