A Hierarchy of Learning Needs for Revolutionizing Inclusive Organizational Practices

Abstract

Problem

Despite organizations adopting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in organizational initiatives, discrimination, and unjust practices persist. Consequently, organizational environments where individuals feel safe and valued are critical not only to organizational effectiveness but for individual learning, growth, and development.

Solution

Inclusive leadership models that: (1) integrate organizational learning as the driver for social transformation at the individual, group, and broad organizational levels and (2) develop inclusive leaders who espouse pro-diversity beliefs, enact social change and envision a workplace that values human relations as a basic need for achieving the highest possible degree of human well-being.

Stakeholders

Organizational leaders, human resource development educators, researchers, scholars.

Keywords

inclusive leadership inclusive leaders organizational learning diversity equity inclusion and belonging psychological safety industrial and organizational psychology

Organizations are transformed through the learning and development of the people within. Achieving an inclusive workplace may require disrupting old ways of thinking before transformation can become a reality. A paradigm shift from thinking about diversity as a competitive business advantage to a more critical mindset that exposes exclusion as a consequence of diversity is needed. To maximize organizational effectiveness, the emerging philosophy of inclusive leadership is recognized for its potential to disrupt and transform exclusionary organizational practices. While it is understood, organizations should make efforts to sustain a competitive advantage, ensuring an inclusive and socially just environment for performing work is necessary (Choi et al., 2015).

Inclusion is a guiding principle and belief system that must be learned and embedded at all organizational levels (Lewis, 2016). “Inclusion requires a deep understanding of the taken-for-granted ways that organizations and societies create exclusion and how individuals have internalized responses to those who are dissimilar” (Nkomo, 2014, p. 585). The inclusion paradigm emerged as a worldview for deconstructing normalized ways of thinking and directing attention to the need to feel safe from biased and discriminatory attitudes that restrict individuals from being their authentic selves (Byrd, 2014). The inclusion paradigm highlights a sense of being a part of the group rather than just being invited into the group; feeling respected and valued; and conveying a level of supportive energy so that the individual feels empowered to put forth their best effort (Byrd, 2018; Miller & Katz, 2002). In addition, Thomas (1990) recognized the need for an inclusive mindset that propels the potential of women and minorities in the workplace. The inclusive leader models the way.

Inclusive leadership balances the demand for organizational productivity and efficiency with members’ desire for equity, fairness, and full participation (Randel et al., 2018). Booysen (2014) describes the phenomenon as:

An ongoing cycle of learning through collaborative and respectful relational practice that enables individuals and collectives to be fully part of the whole, such that they are directed, aligned, and committed toward shared outcomes, for the common good of all, while retaining a sense of authenticity and uniqueness (p. 306).

Inclusive leadership is distinct from other leadership models in several ways. First, inclusive leadership has deep roots in educational research, given the historical background of exclusion in that context (Thompson & Matkin, 2020). Canlas and Williams (2022) warned that the drive to belong can be challenged by systemic barriers and an individual may downplay their authentic self to better fit the workplace norm. With the goal in mind that no employee is left behind, inclusive leadership involves assisting individuals to become part of the group while simultaneously retaining their social group identity. Inclusive leadership also incorporates science. Mattingly et al. (2022) define the science of inclusive leadership as “inclusalytics: which is the process of applying data and statistics to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) to identify patterns, make predictions, select evidence-based interventions, and assess the impact of those interventions to advance workplace inclusion; by using data to measure and drive inclusive behaviors” (p. 10).

Second, traditional models of leadership apply diversity and inclusion synonymously, and do not distinguish the who (diversity) from the how (inclusion) (Winters, 2014). Third, inclusive leadership is a stand-alone model with its own philosophical concepts and principles (Randel et al., 2018). Finally, the prevailing business view that inclusion is simply decision and policymaking ignores the social case that individuals are not equally positioned in society and are excluded by virtue of social identity (race, class, gender, etc.) (Ryan, 2007). Tensions exist as to which of these paradigms contribute to organizational effectiveness. An inclusive mindset has sharpened the perception for the inclusive leader—the view from the balcony differs from the view on the dance floor (Gallegos, 2014). The inclusive leader should have insight, competency, and courage to join the dance.

Organizational practices are value-added factors for organizational effectiveness (Nishii & Rich, 2014). Researchers have identified deficiencies in organizational practices such as lack of involvement in critical work processes (Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998); barriers to networks and resources that provide opportunities (Pettigrew & Martin, 1989); lack of participation in decision-making (Pelled et al., 1999), to name a few, that may be indicative of non-inclusive environments (Roberson & Perry, 2021). However, there is limited research that has studied what the inclusive leader does to create an inclusive environment that supports inclusive beliefs at all levels of the organization. To explore that notion more closely, the following questions are posed in this article:

• How do inclusive leadership practices promote organizational learning that in turn leads to more inclusive environments?

• How does the inclusive leader facilitate organizational learning for building human relationships and organizational transformation?

This article is organized as follows. First, an overview of inclusive leadership for organizational learning will be discussed. Next theoretical foundations for organizational learning and inclusive leadership will highlight human needs for an inclusive workplace. Third, human relations, morality, and social justice for inclusive outcomes will be explained. Next, the inclusive leader as a strategic change agent will be presented. Finally, the conceptual development model, a Hierarchy of Learning Needs for Revolutionizing Inclusive Organizational Practices, will be introduced. The article will conclude with implications for human resource development (HRD).

Inclusive Leadership for Organizational Learning

Organizational learning is the acquisition of new knowledge or insights and ultimately the restructuring of organizational practices for action outcomes (Schulz, 2017). However, organizations learn through the development of its people (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). “As individuals develop their personalities, personal habits, and beliefs over time, organizations develop world views and ideologies. Members come and go, and leadership changes, but organizations' memories preserve certain behaviors, mental maps, norms, and values over time” (Hedberg, 1981, p. 6). Therefore, it can be derived from Hedberg’s explanation that inclusion can become ingrained into an organization’s memory through the learning of the individual members.

Tran and Choi (2019) further elaborate how inclusive leader behaviors facilitate organizational learning and an inclusive work environment. For example, a leader who invites input from all members of a workgroup generates the perception that the leader welcomes and values diversity of perspectives and knowledge sharing. Several researchers have systematically reviewed inclusive leadership (Korkmaz et al., 2022; Roberson & Perry, 2021; Thompson & Matkin, 2020). A critical omission in these studies is the role of the inclusive leader for facilitating inclusive organizational practices that are designed to build human relations and simultaneously move organizations towards transformation and social change.

Theoretical Foundations for Inclusive Leadership

Inclusive leadership is intrinsically linked to the needs of individuals to develop relationships for personal development and organizational effectiveness. Consequently, inclusive leadership is relational leadership as it focuses on interpersonal relationships and drives followers’ perceptions that leaders are fair, accountable and attentive to their needs.

Relevant theoretical foundations selected for this article are: relational theory and needs theory.

Relational Theory

Relationships are central to inclusive leadership. This means that inclusive leaders must “shift their focus from themselves as creating and transmitting leadership to being a leader who invites, considers, and incorporates other perspectives and new ways of making meaning in relation to those perspectives” (Wasserman & Blake-Beard, 2010, p. 206). Moreover, people are complex beings. However, they are not isolated creatures, but social beings “wired to connect” (Jordan, 2017, p. 231).

Relational leadership theory (RLT) (Uhl-Bien, 2006) is a framework that studies leadership as a social influence process and addresses relationships as both “an outcome of investigation…and a context for action” (p. 654). A relational perspective goes beyond examining leader behaviors, traits, and styles and “considers influential acts of organizing that contribute to the structuring of interactions and relationships” (p. 662).

Another framework for understanding relationships is the relational-cultural theory (Jordan, 2017). Relational-cultural theory explains how cross-cultural relationships that are intended to foster growth and development can in fact create exclusion, particularly when a power imbalance exists. The person holding privilege or assumed power by virtue of a dominant position in society has the potential to limit the voice of the other. “Ongoing awareness of privilege, unearned advantage, and unearned disadvantage must inform understanding of self in relation to others” (p. 236).

Needs Theory

Maslow (1943) identified safety and belonging as components of his hierarchy of needs theory. According to Maslow, once physical needs are “relatively well gratified, there then emerges a new set of needs, which we may categorize roughly as the safety needs” (p. 376). Psychological safety is a state in which one is comfortable taking risks in the workplace despite facing constraints (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Fang et al., 2019; Javed et al., 2019; Lehmann et al., 2022). Moreover, psychological safety is the key to achieving “a multicultural perspective or culture of inclusive leadership” (Booysen, 2014, p. 307). Psychological safety is necessary for an individual’s increased self-efficacy (Fang et al., 2019), and, if employees are comfortable voicing their ideas, for flourishing innovation and creativity (Javed et al., 2019). Consequently, knowledge and information sharing, speaking up to make suggestions, and contributing innovative ideas depends on environments that are perceived as psychologically safe (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

After safety needs are satisfied, Maslow (1943) explained how love, affection, and belonging needs emerge with a new center and the cycle begins again. To realize this new state, people will invest energy in social relationships and seek a place in the associated group. Facilitating belongingness depends upon a leader’s ability to support group members, ensure justice and equity, and uphold shared decision-making (Randel et al., 2018).

Consistent with Maslow’s components of need, safety and belongingness are central to Randel et al.’s (2018) framework of inclusive leadership. Belongingness imparts a sense of safety and psychological well-being when an individual embraces a feeling of fit with the group without having to assimilate to the group (Mianda, 2020; Randel et al., 2018). Furthermore, experiencing a sense of belongingness and feeling valued for uniqueness increases a person’s perceptions of inclusion when leaders demonstrate pro-diversity beliefs.

Human Relations, Morality, and Social Justice for Inclusive Outcomes

Human relations is a “principled philosophy that forms the foundation for a practitioner’s thinking, acting, and responding—in an ethical and just manner” (Byrd, 2018, p. 8). According to Aristotelian philosophy, human well-being and fulfillment is the apex and inclusive end of a hierarchy in human purpose (Rayner, 2009). Realizing this outcome involves removing all barriers to inclusive learning. Human relations is an ideological perspective; an open system of social relationships that cuts across all forms of difference (Millard, 1962). The central requirement for building and sustaining effective human relations is learning to:

Work with those with whom we differ to make a goodness of life for all – for we cannot allow our differences of value application to divide us to the point where we are incapable of social action for the common good (p. 230).

Towards this end, achieving such a goal involves a “series of integrative, educative experiences” (p. 228).

Competency and knowledge of philosophical principles of ethics and morality provide a moral compass for the inclusive leader (Lawton et al., 2013). Holistically, organizational practices, activities, and processes have been described as lacking morality (Hart, 1993). Morality refers to a system of beliefs that dictates what we should do or should not do (Byrd, 2018). Moral agency (duty to act) could therefore present an ethical dilemma for the inclusive leader. Moral agency is grounded in Rawls’ (2001) philosophy that stipulates how organizations, through actions of the leaders, have a moral duty to uphold impartiality, fairness, and justice. Inclusive leaders courageously set aside self-interest and are selfless, empathetic, and altruistic when making decisions that impact the lives of others. Rawls’ philosophy is further grounded in social justice principles that challenge uncivil behaviors (Byrd, 2018).

Care and concern for the welfare of people is fundamental to the practice of inclusive leadership. This inclusive practice is guided by an ethics of care (Gilligan, 1993). “The ethics of care starts from the premise that, as humans, we are inherently relational, responsive beings and the human condition is one of connectedness or interdependence” (Webteam, 2011, para. 2). An ethics of care is consistent with the notion of belongingness and emphasizes the significance and need for relationships with others (Lawton et al., 2013). A central requirement is that “care must be both enacted and accepted, with an understanding of the particular views and needs of all parties and a concern for their safety and well-being” (Wallace et al., 2014, p. 320).

Human relations and morality converge into a philosophical discourse for social justice and inclusivity. “Social justice is a democratic, participatory, inclusive process and vision of workplaces” (Byrd, 2018, p. 5) where “all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure … able to develop their full capacity … and capable of interacting democratically with others” (Bell, 2007, p. 1). Espousing social justice outcomes when encountering situations and lived experiences of exclusion is a fundamental and basic human right (Millard, 1962).

The Inclusive Leader as a Strategic Agent of Social Change

A commonly understood representation of social change in an organizational context is the ever-changing nature of social relations and the social structures within institutions that maintain social order (Form & Wilterdink, 2022). Modifying the social structures requires leaders who are informed and knowledgeable of the historical nature of social groups (Hughes, 2016) and who have the diversity intelligence to modify social structures and practices that have become oppressive, particularly for groups whose social identities (e.g., race, sex, religion, age, national origin, color, disability, and pregnancy) subject them to biased behaviors. Furthermore, inclusive leadership is a people-centered approach that recognizes how inclusivity extends to awareness of cultural differences as well as other forms of difference. Therefore, inclusive leaders demonstrate cultural competence, “creating an environment in which diverse groups can learn from each other’s differences and leverage those differences for business effectiveness” (Church et al., 2014, p. 289).

Leaders are “the shapers of the organization’s culture” (Gallegos, 2014, p. 180). In this sense, the role of inclusive leaders is to examine and dissect organizational policies, procedures, and practices that create barriers. Inclusive leaders facilitate members’ pro-active voice, thereby rendering volume and visibility to those whose voices have been historically muted (Gotsis & Grimani, 2016). To lead effectively in fostering diversity and inclusion, leaders must “spur the initiative [and] strategically seed allies [to] change mindsets” (Creary, 2020, n.p.). As Winters (2014) pointed out, “it is easier to perpetuate habitual exclusive practices rather than adopt new inclusive ones” (p. 209). As agents of social change, inclusive leaders boldly question, challenge, reject, and bring awareness to exclusionary and unjust organizational practices. Inclusive leaders must, therefore, have developed a sense of diversity intelligence that helps them to identify organizational practices that sustain an exclusive organizational culture (Hughes, 2016).

Leader behavior has a strong influence on the organization’s culture. Commitment, courage, cognizance of bias, curiosity, cultural intelligence, and collaboration represent behaviors that are capable of transforming an exclusive culture to a more open, receptive, and welcoming place to work (Dillon & Bourke, 2016). Therefore, a leader must be aware of their own biases that could prevent them from advocating for equality, respect and a psychologically safe workplace (Booysen, 2014). This implies that leadership development is fundamental to developing leaders who influence a culture of respect, and a safe environment for learning and growth. “Change comes from listening, learning, caring, and conversation” (McLaughlin, 2015, para. 9). As an inclusive leader it is as important to lead in a way by building an inclusive organization; and drive change that your employees can see and feel (Cox, 2022). Inclusive leaders model the way.

A Hierarchy of Learning: An Inclusive Leadership Model

A Hierarchy of Learning is an evidence-based model that replicates a staircase, allowing one to ascend as they learn more about themselves and others, and become invested in their organization’s diversity and inclusion efforts. Figure 1 illustrates how the model highlights learning at the individual, interrelational, and organizational levels, and then proceeds to incorporate pro-diversity beliefs, inclusive practices, and eventually transformation and liberation. It should be noted that the learning process represented in this model is applicable to all organizational members. However, leaders must understand this hierarchical process from a personal perspective before guiding others through their individual process of learning.

Figure 1.

A hierarchy of learning needs for revolutionizing inclusive organizational practice.

Propositions of the Model

First, learning is initiated at the individual level through the process of discovery. Discovery occurs through self-awareness, cognizance of bias, courage, and humility (Davis, 2019; Dillon & Bourke, 2016). Self-awareness is a component of emotional intelligence that relates to knowing oneself and the self-reflexive attention to one’s own feelings as they occur (Goleman, 1998). Having a cognizance of bias means being able to discern and unlearn negative perceptions about social groups learned at an early age (Harrison-Bernard et al., 2020). Yet, there is a need for individuals to recognize how biases contribute to exclusionary practices. Enacting courage means doing the right thing to confront negative behavior, enacting humility to acknowledge mistakes, and taking a learning approach for self-improvement (van Bommel et al., 2020).

Second, at the inter-relational level, the goal is learning to develop new and perhaps unfamiliar social relationships to conform to the organization’s inclusive efforts and initiatives. Fundamental at this level is the notion of mutuality. Mutuality is the process of recognizing the wholeness of self with others; a reciprocity of care and concern, shared power, and engaging in fairness and respect for the other (Dillon & Bourke, 2016; Gilligan, 1993; Lawton et al., 2013; Shea, 2021). At this level, inclusive leadership is exhibited through mutual respect and interdependency of diverse relationships (Gallegos, 2014; Roberson & Perry, 2021). Colleagues play an important role in psychological safety and performance as well (Lehmann et al., 2022). Mutuality does not necessarily mean “totally symmetrical or equal, but there is a mutual investment in the well-being of each other and of the relationship” (Jordan, 2017, p. 235).

Third, at the organizational level, empowerment and call to action is set in motion by the established climate of inclusion that validates individuals’ sense of belonging and value for uniqueness resulting in transformation and liberation through inclusion, psychological safety, and social justice. Fostering inclusion from the outside in (Lukensmeyer et al., 2014) begins with restructuring from the inside out (Mor Barak & Daya, 2014). At this level, inclusive leaders identify exclusive organizational norms and advocate for change that make the organization’s policies, practices, and procedures amenable to all (Gallegos, 2014).

Fourth, pro-diversity beliefs are expanding by identifying the presence of exclusive practice (Randel et al., 2018). Pro-diversity beliefs are the foundation of inclusive leadership. Paramount to achieving this level is learning to disrupt and counter anti-diversity beliefs, or contrasting pro-diversity views, that could potentially impact any progress of inclusive leadership practice (Homan et al., 2007).

Fifth, learned inclusive practices begin to drive the organization’s mission, vision, and goals. The diversity and inclusion learning paradigm advances the principle that social identity and group differences can affect working relationships and ultimately organizational effectiveness (Thomas & Ely, 1996). Rayner (2009) noted that the inclusive leader involves every member in the process of learning what it means to be inclusive and how to be an inclusive member of the organizational community.

Finally, ascending to the final step, transformation and liberation is possible. Earlier in this article, the argument was presented that organizations do not transform themselves into inclusive places to work. It is the people within who are transformed through progressive steps of learning and people-centered leadership. Liberation means that all people consider themselves equal participants—safe, valued, and cared for.

Establishing Benchmarks for Implementing the Model

Achieving a state of inclusion requires making adjustments in the organization’s systems and establishing benchmarks (also called standards or outcomes) to record results in key organizational systems (e.g., recruiting and onboarding) (O’Mara, 2014). The following benchmarks are established for the Hierarchy of Learning model and adapts standards from the Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmarks: Standards for Organizations Around the World (O'Mara & Richter, 2011):

• initiating the learning process during recruitment and continuing throughout one’s tenure with the organization;

• mentoring of new employees with current employees who have already achieved increased knowledge and awareness of the organization’s policies, procedures, and practices, and are in advanced levels of training, and

• ongoing research and education to continue the growth process and for organizations to evolve alongside society.

This model is beneficial for any organization seeking to develop and practice an inclusive leadership philosophy with an emphasis on organizational learning and development.

Implications for Human Resource Development

Leadership development is critical for the emergent philosophy of inclusive leadership. Developing leaders is more than preparing individuals to assume organizational roles (Byrd, 2022). Inclusive leadership has created a paradigm shift that will cause organizations to reimagine their leader development programs (focus on the person), as well as leadership development programs (focus on the practice). Leader/leadership development remains a prominent human resource development intervention (Byrd & Sparkman, 2022). These programs will need to be revisited to ensure program content contains models and frameworks of inclusion along with principles of human relations and social justice education (Booker & Williams, 2022).

The practice of leadership, regardless of the context or approach, is an ongoing learning process (Riggio, 2008). Individuals with the HRD function as part of their work, who are required to design and implement inclusive leadership development programs, should be subject matter experts with extensive knowledge of diversity and inclusion. Therefore, companies and organizations should consider partnering models with universities and colleges for professional development train-the-trainer programs (Luchini-Colbry et al., 2019).

Concluding Thoughts

This article has given a perspective of inclusion from a learning paradigm that will require new ways of thinking about this emerging philosophy. However, this could mean unlearning old ways of thinking about exclusion before inclusion becomes the norm. Systemic change is not possible with a fixed mindset, nor if an inclusive organizational culture and psychologically safe environment have not been established. Diversity set in motion what was intended to remedy years of oppression, marginalization, and under-representation of non-White people, the patriarchal system, and gender-biased language. It began as a way to ensure that there were enough women and minorities working within different organizations, but since then it has changed dramatically to include not only individual needs of the marginalized, but the collective needs of all people within an organization, or any other context.

Today, many still view diversity as a trend and organizations have jumped on the DEI bandwagon to endorse diversity and brand themselves as being inclusive. However, they are failing to strategically apply the concept of inclusion as a humanistic and relational approach that transcends individuals and includes a more collective, holistic view of an inclusive workplace. A change in organizational practices, systems, and mindsets to actively engage diversity through inclusion creates experiences of psychological safety and belonging that develops unified voices calling for action.

For people with privilege, it is difficult to fathom marginalization of individuals and groups because lacking lived experience suppresses awareness. Indeed, it is a privilege to move through life as if it is balanced harmoniously. However, discrimination and oppression toward any form of human difference are historical, recurring acts of injustice. Inclusive leadership provokes a response to historical failures by unveiling and bringing the failures to light. It changes the way we think about differences at the individual level and encourages us to be better people, better human beings, better bosses, better teachers, better allies, better advocates for change, and better motivators for others to endeavor the same. Perhaps, then, just one inclusive leader is capable of change. Now imagine an entire organization, or society in general, filled with inclusive leaders.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Katrina R. Boutwell

Tyrone D. Smith

Author Biographies

Katrina R. Boutwell, MHR, is a graduate of the University of Oklahoma School of Human Relations where she specialized in Inclusive Leadership, Diversity, Equity, and Social Action. She earned her research certification through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) and received membership into the Society for Collegiate Leadership & Achievement. Katrina holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Saint Martin’s University in Lacey, Washington, and received the award for Outstanding Senior in Psychology. She is an educator with a passion for teaching and is continuing her academic journey to become a Professor at the university level. Her academic writing highlights the marginalization of underrepresented people and communities by government and educational organizations through microaggression and unconscious bias. Katrina is driven by the motto: help people help people, and hopes her work will inspire others’ collective actions and equitable outcomes.

Tyrone D. Smith, Jr., EdD, MBA, is a global strategy and people analytics leader who inspires human capital innovation and transformation. He has served in various leadership capacities in publicly traded (Fortune 500) and privately held organizations. Dr. Smith has provided human capital management, people analytics, organizational science and psychology, and workforce planning solutions at various organizations including but not limited to: Udemy, Ryan, General Motors Financial; John Deere; and Oracle. Dr. Smith is an award-winning scholar, accomplished leader, consultant, coach, practitioner, and researcher who builds high-performing collaborative teams and effectively partners with business leaders and team members to identify, analyze, and solve complex business problems to help organizations meet goals and drive business outcomes. He has also been an instrumental Teaching Faculty member at the University of Southern California and the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Smith was also recognized as a 2021 Top 100 HR Tech by HR Executive Magazine. Dr. Smith’s academic career includes a Bachelor’s in Business Administration from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), a Global MBA from the University of Houston-Victoria, and a Doctorate in Education, EdD. in Leadership and Innovation, focusing his research interests in people analytics for talent management and the future of work, from St. Thomas University. He also completed his post-graduate terminal masters degree in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at Harvard University Division of Continuing Education - Extension School.

References

Bell

L. A.

(2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In Adams

Bell

L. A.

Griffin

(Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed., pp. 4–14). Routledge.

Booker

D. L.

Williams

M. R.

(2022). An inclusive leadership model insights from the Tech Industry. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 24(4), 263–274.

Booysen

(2014). The development of inclusive leadership practices and processes. In Ferdman

B. M.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (1st ed., pp. 296–329). Jossey-Bass.

Byrd

M. Y.

(2014). A social justice paradigm for HRD: Philosophical and theoretical foundations. In Chalofsky

Rocco

Morris HRD

M. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of human resources development (pp. 281–298). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2017.1344419

Byrd

M. Y.

(2018). Does HRD have a moral duty to respond to matters of social injustice? Human Resource Development International, 21(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2017.1344419

Byrd

M. Y.

(2022). Creating a culture of inclusion and belongingness in remote work environments that sustains meaningful work. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2047252

Byrd

M. Y.

Sparkman

T. E.

(2022). Reconciling the business case and the social justice case for diversity: A model of human relations. Human Resource Development Review, 21(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843211072356

Canlas

A. L.

Williams

M. R.

(2022). Meeting belongingness needs: An inclusive leadership practitioner’s approach. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 24(4), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/15234223221118953

Choi

S. B.

Tran

T. B. H.

Park

B. I.

(2015). Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality, 43(6), 931–944. https://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.6.931

10.

Church

A. H.

Rotolo

C. T.

Shull

A. C.

Tuller

M. D.

(2014). Inclusive organization development. In Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (260–295).

11.

Cox

(2022). Leading inclusion: Drive change your employees can see and feel. Page Two.

12.

Creary

(2020). Leading diversity: Why listening and learning come before strategy. Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/leading-diversity-listening-learning-before-strategy/

13.

Davis

(2019). Moving from unconscious bias to inclusive leadership. Design Management Review, 30(3), 12–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/drev.12183

14.

Dillon

Bourke

(2016). The six signature traits of inclusive leadership: Thriving in a diverse new world (pp. 1–26). Deloitte University Press.

15.

Edmondson

A. C.

Lei

(2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, of an interpersonal construct. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-91305

16.

Ethics of Care Webteam . (2011). Interview with Carol Gilligan. https://ethicsofcare.org/carol-gilligan/

17.

Fang

Chen

Wang

Chen

(2019). The impact of inclusive leadership on employees’ innovative work behaviors: The mediation of psychological capital. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(108), 1803–1811. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01803

18.

Fiol

C. M.

Lyles

M. A.

(1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4279103

19.

Form

Wilterdink

(2022). Social change. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-change

20.

Gallegos

P. V.

(2014). The work of inclusive leadership: Fostering authentic relationships, modeling courage and humility. In Ferdman

B. M.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (1st ed., pp. 177–202). Jossey-Bass.

21.

Gilligan

(1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

22.

Goleman

(1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

23.

Gotsis

Grimani

(2016). The role of servant leadership in fostering inclusive organizations. Journal of Management Development, 35(8), 985–1010. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-07-2015-0095

24.

Harrison-Bernard

L. M.

Augustus-Wallace

A. C.

Souza-Smith

F. M.

Tsien

Casey

G. P.

Gunaldo

T. P.

(2020). Knowledge gains in a professional development workshop on diversity, equity, inclusion, and implicit bias in academia. Advances in Physiology Education, 44(3), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00164.2019

25.

Hart

(1993). Human resource management: Time to exercise the militant tendency. Employee Relations, 15(3), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425459310038898

26.

Hedberg

(1981) How organizations learn and unlearn? In Nystrom

P. C.

Starbuck

W. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (pp. 8–27). Oxford University Press.

27.

Homan

A. C.

van Knippenberg

Van Kleef

G. A.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

(2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189–1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189

28.

Hughes

(2016). The leadership of organizational change (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315762425

29.

Javed

Naqvi

Khan

Arjoon

Tayveb

(2019). Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety. Journal of Management and Organizations, 25(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.3

30.

Jordan

(2017). Relational-cultural theory: The power of connection to transform our lives. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 56(3), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/johc.12055

31.

Korkmaz

A. V.

Van Engen

M. L.

Knappert

Schalk

(2022). About and beyond leading uniqueness and belongingness: A systematic review of inclusive leadership research. Human Resource Management Review, 32(4), 100894.

32.

Lawton

Raynor

Lasthuizen

(2013). Ethics and management in the public sector. Routledge.

33.

Lehmann

Pery

Kluger

A. N.

Heckman

D. R.

Owens

B. P.

Malloy

T. E.

(2022). Relationship-specific (dyadic) humility: How your humility predicts my psychological safety and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001059

34.

Lewis

(2016). Social justice leadership and inclusion: A genealogy. Journal of Education Administration and History, 48(4), 324–341. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/00220620.2016.1210589

35.

Luchini-Colbry

Colbry

Rojewski

Briliyanti

(2019). Partners in professional development: Initial results from a collaboration between universities, training programs, and professional societies. In Proceedings of the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.

36.

Lukensmeyer

C. J.

Yao

Brown

(2014). Fostering inclusion from the outside in: Engaging diverse citizens in dialogue and decision making. In Ferdman

B. M.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (1st ed., pp. 482–505). Jossey-Bass.

37.

Maslow

A. H.

(1943). A theory of motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

38.

Mattingly

Grice

Goldstein

(2022). Inclusalytics: How diversity, equity, and inclusion leaders use data to drive their work. Mattingly Solutions.

39.

McLaughlin

E. C.

(2015). University of Missouri president and chancellor step down amid race row. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/us/missouri-football-players-protest-president-resigns/index.html

40.

Mianda

(2020). Behind diversity and inclusive politics: A reading from a francophone scholar at the margin of the canadian academy. Canadian Sociological Association, 57(3), 480–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12297

41.

Millard

T. L.

(1962). Human relations in a changing society, trends and principles. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 35(5), 228–235. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/226469

42.

Miller

Katz

(2002). Inclusion breakthrough: Unleashing the real power of diversity. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

43.

Mor-Barak

M. E.

Cherin

D. A.

(1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in Social Work, 22(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/j147v22n01_04

44.

Mor Barak

M. E.

Daya

(2014). Fostering inclusion from the inside out to create an inclusive workplace: Corporate and organizational efforts in the community and the global society. In Ferdman

B. M.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (1st ed., pp. 391–412). Jossey-Bass.

45.

Nishii

L. H.

Rich

R. E.

(2014). Creating inclusive climates in diverse organizations. In Ferdman

B. M.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (1st ed., pp. 330–363). Jossey-Bass.

46.

Nkomo

S. M.

(2014). Inclusion: Old wine in new bottles. In Ferdman

B. M.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (1st ed., pp. 580–592). Jossey-Bass.

47.

O'Mara

(2014). Global benchmarks for diversity and inclusion. Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion, 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118764282.ch14

48.

O'Mara

Richter

(2011). Global diversity and inclusion benchmarks: Standards for organizations around the world. O'Mara and Associates.

49.

Pelled

L. H.

Ledford

G. E.

Jr. Mohrman

S. A.

(1999). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36(7), 1013–1031. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00168

50.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Martin

(1989). Organizational inclusion of minority groups: A social psychological analysis. In Van Oudenhoven

J. P.

Willemsen

T. M.

(Eds.), Ethnic minorities: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 169–200). Swets North America.

51.

Randel

A. E.

Galvin

B. M.

Shore

L. M.

Ehrhart

K. H.

Chung

B. G.

Dean

M. A.

Kedharnath

(2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002

52.

Rawls

(2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press.

53.

Rayner

(2009). Educational diversity and learning leadership: A proposition, some principles and a model of inclusive leadership? Educational Review, 61(4), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910903404004

54.

Riggio

R. E.

(2008). Leadership development: The current state and future expectations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 383. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.60.4.383

55.

Roberson

Perry

J. L.

(2021). Inclusive leadership in thought and action: A thematic analysis. Group and Organization Management, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211013161

56.

Ryan

(2007). Inclusive leadership: A review. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 18(1-2), 92–125.

57.

Schulz

(2017). Organizational learning. The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, 415–441.

58.

Shea

(2021). A Paradigm of the fully human: Integrity and mutuality, care and justice, love vs. hatred and peace vs. Violence. Education, 141(4), 159–168.

59.

Thomas

D. A.

Ely

R. J.

(1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review.

60.

Thomas

(1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1990/03/from-affirmative-action-to-affirming-diversity

61.

Thompson

Matkin

(2020). The evolution of inclusive leadership: A literature review. Journal of Leadership Education, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.12806/V19/13/R2

62.

Tran

T. B. H.

Choi

S. B.

(2019). Effects of inclusive leadership on organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating roles of organizational justice and learning culture. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 13, e17. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2019.10

63.

Uhl-Bien

(2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007

64.

Van Bommel

Shaffer

Travis

D. J.

Foust-Cummings

(2020). Inclusive leadership from the inside out. In Inclusive leadership (pp. 111–124). Routledge.

65.

Wallace

Hoover

K. F.

Pepper

M. B.

(2014). Multicultural ethics and diversity discourse. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(4), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-05-2013-0035

66.

Wasserman

I. C.

Blake-Beard

(2010). Leading inclusively: Mind-sets, skills and actions for a diverse, complex world. In Extraordinary leadership: Addressing the gaps in senior executive development (pp. 197–212).

67.

Winters

(2014). From diversity to inclusion: An inclusion equation. In Ferdman

B. M.

Deane

B. R.

(Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (1st ed., pp. 205–228). Jossey-Bass.