Keywords
Algorithmic Fairness
Indian IT Sector
Organizational Behavior
Employee Experience
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
Competency Mapping
Industrial Psychology
Intersectionality
Digital HR
How to Cite
Abstract
The Indian information technology (IT) sector exemplifies global competitiveness and rapid digital transformation, yet its celebrated meritocracy conceals enduring patterns of psychological and structural inequity. Grounded in the discipline of industrial psychology, this study explores how intersectional identities—particularly gender, caste, disability, and regional background—influence the experiences of underrepresented employees within competency mapping and digital HR assessment systems. Employing a qualitative interpretive design, forty-eight professionals from eight major IT organizations were interviewed to examine behavioral, cognitive, and perceptual dimensions of workplace inclusion.
Findings reveal that competency frameworks—though intended to be objective—often reflect hidden psychological and cultural biases through language, communication norms, and algorithmic evaluation tools. Intersectionally marginalized employees reported lower recognition, limited psychological safety, and reduced access to developmental feedback. Drawing upon intersectionality theory and industrial-organizational psychology, the study introduces the Intersectional Competency Inclusion Framework (ICIF), which integrates fairness, cognitive awareness, and inclusive behavioral design into HR processes. The framework’s five pillars—Recognition, Representation, Reflection, Re-skilling, and Resilience—emphasize equity-centered leadership and the psychological conditions necessary for belonging and performance.
The research contributes theoretically by linking industrial psychology with intersectional HRM, reframing competencies as context-sensitive, socially co-constructed, and psychologically dynamic constructs. Practically, it offers actionable pathways for developing inclusive, evidence-based HR systems that balance meritocracy with empathy, equity, and human flourishing in India’s evolving IT workforce.
References
1) Academy to Innovate HR (AIHR). (2024). Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) at organizations [Framework diagram]. Retrieved from https://www.aihr.com/
2) Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
3) Aguinis, H., & Burgi-Tian, J. (2021). Talent management challenges during COVID-19 and beyond: Performance management to reimagine fairness and inclusion. Human Resource Management Review, 31(4), 100762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100762
4) Alonso, F. M., & Moscoso, S. (2023). Competency-based HRM: Integrating behavioral indicators with organizational psychology. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(5), 921–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1902449
5) Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
6) Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
7) Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840730
8) Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
9) Calvard, T. S., & Jeske, D. (2023). Algorithmic management and fairness in HR analytics. Human Resource Management Review, 33(2), 100909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100909
10) Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
11) Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
12) Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
13) Dwertmann, D. J., Nishii, L. H., & van Knippenberg, D. (2016). Disentangling the fairness–diversity–performance link: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1379–1408. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000127
14) Farnham, D., & Stevens, A. (2021). HRM and organizational psychology in the digital era: Rethinking inclusion. European Management Review, 18(3), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12450
15) Friedman, R., & Holtom, B. (2020). Intersectional identities and psychological safety in global virtual teams. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(6), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09700-3
16) Kumar, R., & Thomas, S. (2023). Caste and career progression in the Indian IT sector: An intersectional analysis. Asian Business & Management, 22(3), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-021-00168-0
17) Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
18) Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
19) Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2015). Psychological capital and beyond. Oxford University Press.
20) Morgeson, F. P., Brannick, M. T., & Levine, E. L. (2020). Reexamining competence in work design: A psychology-informed model. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045413
21) NASSCOM. (2024). Diversity in India’s IT workforce: Annual report. NASSCOM Research Foundation.
22) Nishii, L. H. (2018). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 1923–1951. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0148
23) Nkomo, S. M. (2022). Decolonizing diversity and inclusion: The African contribution. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 41(5), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2020-0312
24) Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/259124
25) Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2020). Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 469–481. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372828
26) Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Sage Publications.
27) Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556383
28) Sulich, A., & Sołoducho-Pelc, L. (2022). Green competencies: Review and future research in the context of green HRM. Economics and Environment, 2(89), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2024.89.2.713
29) Syed, J., & Özbilgin, M. (2019). Managing diversity and inclusion: An international perspective (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
30) Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
31) Upadhya, C. (2020). Re-coding gender and class in Indian IT. Gender, Work & Organization, 27(6), 1225–1240. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12470
32) Van Dijk, T. A. (2021). Discourse, power, and inclusion: Cognitive perspectives for HRM. Human Resource Management Review, 31(2), 100789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100789
33) Wielewska, I., Sulich, A., & Sołoducho-Pelc, L. (2023). Sustainable HRM: Linking green and inclusive competencies. Sustainability, 15(5), 4120. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054120
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Cortexplore