Organizations increasingly report demographic representation, belonging initiatives, and inclusive values, yet these signals do not establish that employees participate consequentially or share power. The central problem is conceptual compression: representation, social membership, influence, and structural change are often treated as interchangeable indicators of inclusion. This integrative review examines heterogeneous organizational, psychological, sociological, qualitative, quantitative, theoretical, methodological, and measurement evidence to clarify those distinctions. The review combines transparent targeted searching, relevance-based selection, structured extraction, critical appraisal, and cross-domain synthesis while preserving design differences and contradictory findings. Evidence converges on belonging and valued uniqueness as important experiences of social membership, but it also shows that membership may be conditional, identity-regulating, modality-dependent, or disconnected from decision consequences. Voice research further indicates that speaking opportunities, expression, reception, status, and actual influence should be separated. Structural scholarship shifts attention toward authority, resource allocation, institutional routines, and the capacity to alter rules. The article’s original contribution is an Inclusion-Depth Framework that organizes presence, social membership, consequential participation, and structural power as analytically distinct depths connected by conditional rather than automatic transitions. The synthesis does not establish a validated causal sequence, comprehensive measurement system, or universally effective organizational intervention. Its implications are therefore diagnostic and research-oriented: organizations should avoid inferring depth from visibility or sentiment alone, and future studies should trace decisions, resources, network access, and structural change longitudinally and across levels.
