In recent years, the phrase “inclusive leadership” has become increasingly common across various contexts. Google it, and you will have over 353,000,000 results in 0.5 seconds. Search for inclusive leadership books on Amazon, and you will find over 1,000 options from which to choose. Yet, despite these seemingly endless resources, and consultants, scholars, and everyone in between touting the value of inclusive leadership, research and day-to-day experiences indicate that many leaders still have much to learn about it putting into practice. Still, others may be outright resistant to the notion of its importance. These challenges are rooted, in part, in misconceptions about what inclusive leadership is and how it is often framed.

Inclusive leadership refers to leaders who exhibit openness, accessibility, and availability in their interactions with followers. These facets of inclusive leadership reflect care and concern for others, a willingness to listen to others’ feedback and ideas, and a desire to build connections and create conditions where employees can fully contribute. The high-quality exchanges that are inherent in inclusive leadership help facilitate employees’ sense of inclusion, which is the degree to which an one perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness. Sounds great, right? So, why do many leaders miss the mark?

Discussions of inclusive leadership are often paired with those of diversity, equity, and inclusion more broadly, which comes with its own challenges in some cases. One challenge is that individuals may quickly conclude that their contexts are already inclusive, diverse, and equitable. However, we know from research on system justification theory that individuals have a motivated tendency to view the status quo in a positive light and believe in the legitimacy of the systems to which they belong, which includes their organizations, among other systems (e.g., community and religious). This tendency can lead individuals to rationalize, defend, and deny negative characteristics and injustices in the systems of which they are members. And the tendency to justify such is stronger when:

1. the system is longstanding and there are few exit opportunities to escape the system (i.e., system inescapability),
2. people feel powerless and dependent on the system (i.e., low personal control), and
3. when the system is challenged, criticized, or threatened by outsiders (i.e., system threat).

Another common challenge is that discussions of DEI are often anchored in a business case—the notion that strengthening an organization’s diversity can result in positive financial outcomes, a claim that is generally not supported by research. The business case for DEI can actually fail to motivate people to enact change, decrease a sense of belongingness among women and minorities, diminish the experience of those trying to advance change genuinely, and send the message that DEI is worth investing in only if it enhances an organization’s profitability. Diversity and inclusion can be harnessed more effectively when leaders look beyond economic reasons to value the dignity, contributions, voice, and creativity of all employees and intentionally enact the behaviors of inclusive leadership—openness, accessibility, and availability with their employees—because it is the right thing to do.

With these points in mind, the WBIL is excited to launch an inclusive leadership campaign, which will enable us to continue exploring the facets and behaviors of inclusive leadership over the next few weeks.Check out our LinkedInpageeach Wednesday to learn more!