Diversity and inclusion (D&I) have become central to corporate and human resource development (HRD) strategies worldwide, particularly in the information technology (IT) sector, where global operations, agile teamwork and innovation demand psychologically safe and inclusive environments. However, while most initiatives focus on improving demographic representation, a deeper challenge lies in translating this representation into meaningful inclusion (Loden & Rosener, 1991; Mazur, 2010). The key question for HRD practitioners is whether these inclusion efforts truly foster trust, interpersonal learning and long-term employee development (Okatta et al., 2024).

Despite visible progress, many employees still experience perceived tokenism, the sense of being included symbolically to meet diversity metrics rather than on merit. Such symbolic inclusion can erode morale, reduce trust and hinder collaboration among minority groups. Employees who see themselves as ‘tokens’ often experience stress, detachment and diminished belongingness, especially in high-pressure, performance-driven sectors such as IT. Understanding how perceived tokenism affects workplace relationships, learning and discretionary performance remains a critical yet underexplored issue in both HRD research and practice (Childress et al., 2023; Jain et al., 2023).

The association between perceived tokenism, psychological safety and contextual performance can be better understood through established theoretical perspectives. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) posits that individuals derive a sense of self and belonging from group membership; when employees feel they are included symbolically rather than on merit, they experience identity threat and weakened in-group belonging. Such threats diminish interpersonal trust and suppress voice behaviour, thereby lowering psychological safety.

Complementarily, the Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) explains that employees seek to conserve psychological and social resources, such as respect, recognition and inclusion. Perceived tokenism signals a potential loss of these resources, triggering stress and withdrawal behaviours that impair the contextual performance. When employees perceive authentic inclusion, they invest their resources time, effort and creativity more willingly, reinforcing a positive cycle of safety and contribution. These theoretical perspectives clarify why symbolic inclusion can erode both psychological and behavioural workplace engagement.

Parallel to this, recent HRD and organisational research has highlighted the importance of psychological safety as a contextual condition that translates inclusion into actual engagement. Psychological safety refers to the collective perception that expressing opinions, asking questions or admitting mistakes will not result in negative consequences (Edmondson, 1999). It serves as the interpersonal foundation that allows diverse teams to function effectively in high-pressure, innovation-driven sectors, such as IT, where collaboration, agility and learning are central to success. When teams foster this sense of safety, employees are more likely to share new ideas, learn from feedback and experiment without fear of failure behaviours central to adaptive expertise and developmental growth (Sharma & Mehta, 2023; Subhakaran et al., 2020).

Additionally, contextual performance encompasses voluntary and discretionary behaviours that strengthen the social and psychological environment of the workplace, such as helping colleagues, maintaining cooperation and upholding organisational values (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Griffin et al., 2000). Such behaviours extend beyond formal job roles and are crucial indicators of employee engagement and organisational citizenship. Inclusive and psychologically safe workplaces nurture these behaviours, while environments marked by exclusion or perceived tokenism suppress them, thereby limiting both individual development and collective performance (Lester, 2008; Prakoso, 2022).

In contrast, those who experience exclusion or burnout may pull back from developmental opportunities, limiting both the effectiveness of training and its application in the workplace (Lester, 2008). Although these three constructs perceived tokenism, psychological safety and contextual performance have been individually studied in organisational behaviour literature, very few empirical studies have explored their interrelationships within a single framework, especially within the Indian IT sector. This study addressed this gap. It examines how perceptions of tokenism influence psychological safety and contextual performance and how workplace factors such as communication, supervisor support, coworker relations and burnout shape these dynamics. Furthermore, it investigates whether gender and years of experience influence perceptions and outcomes.

This study links psychological safety and contextual performance to inclusion frameworks, offering valuable insights for HRD practice. It highlights how addressing tokenism can inform more inclusive training, leadership development and performance strategies in diverse organisational settings.

The Indian IT sector, which employs over 5 million professionals, is an ideal setting for such research. With rapid digitalisation, evolving workforce demographics and increasing global integration, questions of diversity, inclusion and well-being are no longer peripheral; they are essential. Yet, empirical research in this space remains limited, especially studies that move beyond surface-level representation to examine the psychological experiences of employees in diverse workplaces (Maj, 2023).

This article aims to:

By examining these constructs within a unified conceptual perspective, this study provides novel insights into psychology, human resource (HR) management and organisational leadership. This underscores the need for organisations to move beyond numeric diversity towards cultivating environments that are psychologically safe, performance-enabling and meaningfully inclusive.

This study adopted a cross-sectional quantitative survey design. The research was grounded in a detailed literature review and examined three core constructs: perceived tokenism, psychological safety and contextual performance. To refine these constructs and evaluate empirical item performance, two pilot surveys were administered using Google Forms: Pulse Survey (n = 57) and the Snap Survey (n = 55), targeting IT professionals of diverse genders, functions and experience levels. Analysis of pilot survey responses, specifically item correlations, reliability patterns and instances where correlations were weaker than theoretically expected, guided the refinement of item wordings, removal of statistically weak items and clarification of construct boundaries. These empirical insights were used to develop the final comprehensive 28-item structured questionnaire, which underwent an academic review process to ensure that the instrument was both theoretically robust and contextually grounded for the Indian IT sector. The study evolved from doctoral-level academic investigation.

The subsequent quantitative phase involved administering a 28-item structured questionnaire developed from the literature and quantitative insights. The main objective was to examine the relationships between perceived tokenism, psychological safety and contextual performance, while the secondary objective was to explore the role of workplace and demographic factors in these relationships.

The survey comprising 28 items across seven constructs: perceived tokenism (8 items, α = 0.851), psychological safety (7 items, α = 0.848), contextual performance (6 items, α = 0.876), burnout (2 items, α = 0.942), supervisor support (2 items, α = 0.911), coworker support (2 items, α = 0.866) and communication (2 items, α = 0.829). Respondents rated items on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The survey was sent online and shared via email and LinkedIn over 6 weeks, resulting in responses from 344 IT professionals. The main goal was to examine the relationships between perceived tokenism, psychological safety and contextual performance. The secondary goal was to explore the impact of workplace factors, such as burnout, communication and support from supervisors and coworkers, along with the moderating effects of gender and professional experience. Data were analysed using SPSS (version 27).

This study offers an empirical examination of the links between perceived tokenism, psychological safety and contextual performance within the Indian IT sector. It also investigates how workplace factors, including burnout, communication and support from supervisors and peers, as well as demographic variables such as gender and experience, shape these outcomes. As discussed in the introduction, much of the conversation around diversity in India remains focused on numbers rather than experiences. This research addresses that gap by exploring how symbolic inclusion can impact employees’ psychological well-being and workplace behaviour. It provides data-driven insight into the patterns through which tokenism is associated with psychological safety and contextual performance-related behaviours.

Findings indicate significant negative associations between perceived tokenism and both psychological safety and contextual performance, supporting earlier warnings by Kanter and Yoder about the pitfalls of surface-level inclusion (Conquergood, 1991; Strauss & Kanter, 1978). Employees who feel included merely to fulfil diversity goals are less likely to feel secure in their teams, which lowers their willingness to contribute ideas, take initiative or go beyond basic job expectations. This issue is particularly relevant in the Indian IT context, where success depends heavily on collaboration, agility and shared problem-solving. When tokenism is present, it creates barriers to open participation and disrupts team dynamics.

The study also reinforces the idea that psychological safety plays a critical role in turning inclusive intentions into meaningful performance outcomes. The strong link between psychological safety and contextual performance is consistent with Edmondson’s foundational work, suggesting that when employees feel secure, they are more likely to engage in proactive, collaborative and discretionary behaviours that benefit the team (Edmondson, 1999). In IT environments where speed, adaptability and interdependence are vital, such behaviours are often key to successful project execution.

Workplace conditions, especially communication and support from colleagues and supervisors, also proved essential. These factors not only helped reduce feelings of tokenism but also fostered psychological safety. This aligns with previous research emphasising that inclusion is shaped less by identity categories and more by daily interactions, transparency and how support is extended within teams (Detert & Burris, 2007; Singh & Vinnicombe, 2004). Clear communication builds trust and shared understanding, while strong interpersonal support provides emotional and cognitive stability in high-pressure environments.

It is also important to recognise that burnout may not only act as a predictor but also as a potential outcome variable within this framework. Persistent experiences of perceived tokenism and low psychological safety can deplete emotional and cognitive resources, leading to heightened exhaustion and disengagement over time. Future studies using longitudinal or cross-lagged designs could examine this reciprocal pathway to better understand the cyclical nature of inclusion, safety and well-being at work.

On the other hand, burnout emerged as a strong negative influence on psychological safety. Employees experiencing emotional exhaustion appeared less likely to feel secure enough to fully engage with their teams. This finding is consistent with Hobfoll’s COR theory, which suggests that when individuals are emotionally drained, they withdraw from situations that require further interpersonal risk or energy (Hobfoll, 1989). Thus, even well-intentioned inclusion efforts may falter if not paired with strategies to address workload and well-being.

Although gender did not significantly alter the study’s key relationships, professional experience did. Those with less than 3 years of experience reported higher levels of tokenism and lower contextual performance compared to their more experienced peers. These patterns suggest that early-career employees particularly those from underrepresented groups may be especially sensitive to symbolic inclusion and feel less empowered to contribute fully. This highlights the need for onboarding, mentorship and inclusion initiatives that are specifically designed for junior staff (Mackey et al., 2017).

The findings must also be understood within the cultural and organisational context of India, where hierarchical structures, collectivist values and high-power distance influence workplace dynamics. In such settings, employees often defer to authority and avoid open disagreement, which can limit upward communication and reinforce perceived tokenism in the workplace. Hierarchical decision-making and seniority-driven respect norms may make it difficult for junior or minority employees to voice dissenting views, thereby suppressing psychological safety, even in teams that are nominally diverse. Furthermore, collectivist expectations for group harmony may discourage individuals from highlighting inequities or perceived symbolic inclusion, as doing so may be viewed as disrupting the social balance. These cultural dimensions suggest that inclusion strategies in Indian organisations cannot simply replicate Western models; instead, they must actively address power asymmetries and create explicit structures for feedback, mentoring and safe voice expression to mitigate tokenism and enhance employees’ psychological safety.

From a theoretical perspective, this research contributes by proposing a conceptual framework in which psychological safety is considered a potential relational link between tokenism and workplace performance. While previous studies have explored these variables independently, this approach underscores how organisational climate, individual perception and behavioural outcomes interact, especially within India’s complex social and corporate structures. It also brings attention to the importance of studying inclusion within emerging economies, where cultural hierarchies and collective norms may influence how inclusion is experienced.

Practically, these findings offer actionable guidance for HR professionals and organisational leaders. Firstly, inclusion strategies should go beyond representation metrics to assess how employees perceive tokenism and psychological safety. Secondly, line managers need training not only in task execution but also in inclusive practices such as active listening, empathy and shared decision-making. Thirdly, organisations might benefit from incorporating psychological safety assessments into routine performance or team reviews to gauge whether employees feel supported. Fourthly, greater attention should be given to supporting early-career professionals, especially those who may be the ‘only’ representatives of a particular identity on their teams.

In conclusion, this study emphasises that genuine inclusion is not a one-time goal but an ongoing, relational process. For the Indian IT sector to fully leverage its diverse talent, it must prioritise building a supportive and inclusive work culture where all employees not just the experienced or majority groups have the opportunity to grow and succeed.

This study highlights the critical role of psychological inclusion in the Indian IT sector, showing that perceived tokenism is associated with lower psychological safety and contextual performance, particularly among early-career professionals. Communication, social support and burnout emerged as key factors influencing these outcomes. By situating tokenism within a non-Western, high-performance context, the research shows the need to move beyond representation towards relational inclusion. Future efforts should focus on fostering psychologically safe environments where all employees feel genuinely empowered to contribute, grow and lead.