AALTO University

School of Science

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management

Olli Kiikkilä

Characteristics of Inclusive Leadership

and Differences in Awareness and Attitudes

Master’s Thesis

Espoo, 19/7/2021

Supervisor: University Lecturer Jari Ylitalo (D.Sc)

Instructor: Master of Social Science Susanna Bairoh

I

AALTO UNIVERSITY School of Science Master’s Program in Industrial Engineering and Management

ABSTRACT OF THE MASTER’S THESIS

Author: Olli Kiikkilä

Title: Characteristics of Inclusive Leadership and Differences in Awareness and Attitudes

Pages: 70 + 6 Date: 19 July 2021 Language: English

Major: SCI3094 Organization Design and Leadership

In the globalizing world, diversity is becoming an ever more relevant opportunity and issue for companies. To

tackle trouble arising from diversity and benefit from its potential advantages, organizations turn to inclusion, a

practice of empowering, involving and celebrating diverse talent. Leadership plays a decisive role in fostering

inclusion and an inclusive work climate. Nevertheless, the existing literature lacks empirical insight into the

effectual elements of inclusive leadership. Similarly, the differences in people’s awareness and attitudes towards

D&I are traditionally overlooked. This study aims to fill this research gap with a description of inclusive leadership

and differences in awareness and attitudes.

The research takes an inductive approach to describe inclusive leadership while acknowledging the

phenomenological nature of the research topic. Altogether 21 people were interviewed, consisting of supervisors

and their employees in two Finnish ICT consultancy companies. Grounded theory was employed in the analysis

to identify converging narratives in the interviews, while abductive research was also applied in reflecting the

interpretations against existing literature.

Building on interviewees’ experiences of leadership, perception of relevant organizational elements and barriers

for inclusion, the study proposes a set of inclusive leadership characteristics fostering inclusion in individual

relationships as well as in the work group. The study further suggests six mediators of inclusive leadership upon

which the articulated characteristics rely: psychological safety, shared identity, an atmosphere of uniqueness,

humane respect, feeling of being an insider and relationality. The study suggests that the mediators serve as the

underlying dynamics in facilitating individuals’ sense of inclusion in their experience of the leadership

Furthermore, the study lays out the specters of awareness and attitudes that emerged from the interviews. Their

potential implications are discussed, and the role of critical self-reflection and self-awareness and proactive

attitude is underlined.

This study contributes to the current body of research with a comprehensive description of inclusive leadership

connecting dispersed elements and propositions from existing literature. Furthermore, the study provides novel

insight into the diversity of awareness and attitudes towards D&I, whose potentially decisive role in inclusive

leadership is also hypothesized.

Supervisor: University Lecturer Jari Ylitalo (D.Sc)

Instructor: MSSc Susanna Bairoh

Keywords: Inclusive leadership, leadership, organizational inclusion, diversity, diversity management

II

AALTO-YLIOPISTO Perustieteiden korkeakoulu Master’s Program in Industrial Engineering and Management

DIPLOMITYÖN TIIVISTELMÄ

Tekijä: Olli Kiikkilä

Työn nimi: Inklusiivisen johtajuuden piirteet sekä erot tietoisuudessa ja asenteissa

Sivumäärä: 70 + 6 Päivämäärä: 19.07.2021 Kieli: englanti

Pääaine: SCI3094 Organization Design and Leadership

Kansainvälistyvässä maailmassa työvoiman monimuotoisuudesta on tullut entistä ajankohtaisempi mahdollisuus

jo haaste yrityksille. Taklatakseen monimuotoisuudesta aiheutuvia ongelmia sekä hyödyntääkseen sen avaamia

hyötyjä, organisaatiot kääntyvät inkluusion puoleen – työntekijöidensä kokonaisvaltaiseen osallistamiseen sekä

erilaisuuden rohkaisemiseen. Johtajuus on merkittävässä roolissa inkluusion ja inklusiivisen ilmapiirin

luomisessa. Tästä huolimatta kirjallisuus ei tarjoa riittävästi empiirisesti tutkimustietoa inklusiivisen johtajuuden

perusosista. Lisäksi ihmisten tietoisuus ja asenteellisuus D&I-teemoja kohtaan on tähän asti jätetty huomiotta

tutkimuksessa. Tämä tutkimus vastaa näihin kysymyksiin kuvauksellaan inklusiivisen johtajuuden piirteistä sekä

eroista tietoisuudessa ja asenteissa.

Tutkimus lähestyy inklusiivista johtajuutta induktiivisesti ja tunnustaa samalla ilmiön fenomenologisen luonteen.

Yhteensä 21 henkilöä – esihenkilöitä ja heidän alaisiaan – haastateltiin tutkimusta varten kahdesta suomalaisesta

IT-konsultointiyrityksestä. Analyysissä tunnistettiin yhteneväisyyksiä haastateltavien kuvauksissa omista

johtajakokemuksistaan ja löydöksiä verrattiin olemassa olevaan kirjallisuuteen.

Haastateltavien johtajuuskokemusten sekä kuvaamiensa organisaatiokulttuurin piirteiden ja esteiden pohjalta

tutkimus esittää joukon inklusiivisen johtajuuden piirteitä, jotka viljelevät inkluusion tunnetta yksittäisissä

suhteissa sekä työryhmien toiminnassa. Tutkimus esittää myös kuusi inklusiivisen johtajuuden

perusdynamiikkaa, joihin edellä esitetyt piirteet pohjautuvat: psykologinen turvallisuus, jaettu me-kuva,

ainutlaatuisuuden ilmapiiri, inhimillinen kunnioitus, sisäpiiriläisyys sekä vuorovaikutteisuus. Edellä kuvatut

perusdynamiikat välittävät oleellisesti inkluusion tunnetta yksilöissä inklusiivisen johtajuuden piirteiden tuloksena.

Tutkimus pohjustaa myös ymmärrystä ihmisten D&I-tietoisuuden ja -asennoituneisuuden kirjosta haastatteluiden

erojen pohjalta. Tutkimus puntaroi löydösten seurauksia ja alleviivaa erityisesti kriittisen itsereflektion ja -

tietoisuuden sekä proaktiiviset asennoitumisen roolia.

Tutkimus edistää olemassa olevaa kirjallisuutta laaja-alaisella katsauksella inklusiivisen johtajuuden piirteistä

sekä yhdistää hajanaisen tutkimuskentän löydöksiä ja teorioita. Tutkimus tarjoaa myös täysin uutta tietoa D&I-

tietoisuuden ja -asenteiden monimuotoisuudesta, ja hypotetisoi näiden ratkaisevaa roolia inklusiivisessa

johtamisessa.

Valvoja: Yliopistonlehtori Jari Ylitalo (TkT)

Työn ohjaaja: VTM Susanna Bairoh

Avainsanat: Inklusiivinen johtaminen, johtaminen, organisaatioinkluusio, diversiteetti, diversiteettijohtaminen

III

Preface

Although I would have never expected a global pandemic to give my last student years a twist,

I was still even more surprised that I would learn so much new in the past six months while

working on my Master’s thesis. It has been a truly eye-opening journey of self-reflection and

exploration while delving into the diversity, equality and inclusion topics. Altogether, it’s quite

something to graduate after the long and eventful years in Otaniemi but graduating with a

thesis on a topic of actual humane value is something even more.

I am most grateful to my thesis instructor Susanna Bairoh and supervisor Jari Ylitalo, for the

active and insightful guidance throughout the research process. Furthermore, I’m thankful to

Tekniikan Akateemiset TEK for providing me with such an important and impactful research

topic.

Recently, my friend Johannes joked that it’s almost as hard to get out of the Aalto university

as it is to get in. Not because the university would be too overwhelming but rather because

the Aalto community provides so many exciting and attractive opportunities and ambitious

projects. I definitely relate with the joke, and the past seven years would not have been as fun

as they have if I hadn’t signed up for the infinite number of volunteer projects. Although there

are lots of people I’d like to thank for the incredible ride, here are a few highlights:

- Sara, for making the thesis process during a pandemic manageable and supporting

me in my ups and downs

- Prodeko, ProH’17 and ProH’18, for giving me the opportunities to find my own path

along with the priceless experiences and memorable moments

- Jäynä and Vapaateekkarit, for the friends, memories and over-the-top projects time

after time

- Pöh(i)nä, thank you for the music

- Perhe Kiikkilä, for the unconditional support behind the scenes

Although graduation feels like an end of an unforgettable chapter, I know it’s also a beginning

of a new one.

LTN,

Olli Kiikkilä

Espoo, 19th July 2021

IV

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Relevance of research ................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Research objective and questions .............................................................................. 2

1.3 Thesis structure ........................................................................................................... 2

2 Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Diversity ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Organizational Equality ............................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Organizational Equality and Diversity ................................................................ 7

2.2.2 Social sources of inequality ............................................................................... 8

2.2.3 Structural sources of inequality ....................................................................... 10

2.3 Inclusion .................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Dimensions of inclusion ................................................................................... 13

2.3.2 Organization-level inclusion ............................................................................. 16

2.3.3 Group-level inclusion ....................................................................................... 17

2.3.4 Individual-level inclusion .................................................................................. 18

2.3.5 Synthesis of organizational inclusion .............................................................. 19

2.4 Leadership and Inclusion .......................................................................................... 20

2.4.1 Relational Leadership ...................................................................................... 20

2.4.2 Inclusive Leadership ........................................................................................ 22

2.4.3 Inclusive leadership levels ............................................................................... 23

2.4.4 Synthesis of inclusive leadership..................................................................... 25

3 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 26

3.1 Ontology and epistemology ...................................................................................... 26

3.2 Research design ....................................................................................................... 28

3.3 Data collection ........................................................................................................... 29

3.4 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 32

4 Findings ........................................................................................................................... 34

4.1 Psychological safety .................................................................................................. 36

4.2 Humane Respect....................................................................................................... 39

4.3 Shared Identity .......................................................................................................... 40

4.4 Atmosphere of Uniqueness ....................................................................................... 42

4.5 Relationality ............................................................................................................... 44

4.6 Feeling of being an insider ........................................................................................ 45

4.7 Attitudes and Awareness .......................................................................................... 46

V

5 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 50

5.1 Theoretical implications............................................................................................. 50

5.2 Practical implications ................................................................................................. 55

5.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 56

5.4 Future research ......................................................................................................... 58

6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 60

References .............................................................................................................................. 61

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 1

Appendix 1: Inclusive Leadership Maturity Model ................................................................. 1

Appendix 2: Table of Interviewees ......................................................................................... 2

Appendix 3: Research Interview Consent ............................................................................. 3

Appendix 4: Original quotes (in the order of appearance) .................................................... 4

VI

List of Figures

Figure 1: Dimensions of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011) ........................................................... 14

Figure 2: Dimensions, Elements and Levels of Organizational Inclusion............................... 19

Figure 3: Chain of Formulation and Interpretation (modified from Laine, 2010) .................... 27

Figure 4: The Characteristics and Mediators of Inclusive Leadership .................................... 35

List of Tables

Table 1: Grounding in interviews ............................................................................................. 36

Table 2: The specter of D&I awareness .................................................................................. 47

Table 3: The specter of D&I attitudes (with fictive descriptive example quotes) .................... 47

Table 4: Connections to existing literature .............................................................................. 51

Abbreviations

D&I Diversity and Inclusion

ICT Information and Communication Technology

LMX Leader–Member Exchange

AL Authentic Leadership

ODT Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

RLT Relational Leadership Theory

1

1 Introduction This chapter introduces the research topic, argues its relevance and background, and

articulates the research objectives, research questions and the selected methods. Last, the

structure of the thesis is presented.

1.1 Relevance of research

Thanks to globalization, the workforce available for organizations is much larger and more

diverse today. Although the advantages of diversity are debated, diversity has become a

relevant topic for organizations (Ferdman et al., 2010). Most importantly, the benefits of

diversity seem to come with a cost: “diversity appears to be a double-edged sword, increasing

the opportunity for creativity as well as the likelihood that group members will be dissatisfied

and fail to identify with the group” (Milliken and Martins, 1996, p. 403). Therefore, the

importance of organizational inclusion is highlighted: “Diversity is the mix. Inclusion is making

the mix work” (Tapia, 2009, p. 12). While diversity refers to the manifoldness in the company

personnel, inclusion comprises individuals’ experience of belonging to the organization and

being wholeheartedly their true selves. Although the two concepts are distinct, they are

popularly referred to together with D&I, diversity and inclusion, in organizations.

Prior studies show that organizational inclusion improves employee retention (Nishii and

Mayer, 2009) and improves team performance (Mitchell et al., 2015; Chung et al., 2020),

among other benefits. However, organizational inclusion is not self-evident or effortless and

latent inequalities in organizational practices and systemic structures are found to manifest in

women’s career advancement (Trauth et al., 2009), among many other ways.

According to research, leadership plays an integral role in facilitating inclusion through

individual leadership relations (Cottrill et al., 2014; Randel et al., 2018) and shaping an

inclusive work climate (Wasserman et al., 2008). Sabharwal (2014) found that organizational

policies and structural transformation alone are insufficient for increasing diversity-to-

performance and, instead, inclusive leadership is required. Notably, inclusive leadership

spans beyond managing trouble arising from diversity to empowering individuals to their full

potential (Sabharwal, 2014). As for organizational inclusion, inclusive leadership is not self-

evident, and Lee et al. (2010) synthesize that many managers do not sufficiently support their

female employees’ career advancement. However, research shows that inclusive leadership

has the potential to facilitate heterogeneous groups to perform more effectively (Homan and

2

Greer, 2013), reduce employee turnover (Nishii and Mayer, 2009), and endorse innovation

and creativity (Carmeli et al., 2010; Javed et al., 2019). Furthermore, I argue that inclusive

leadership per se is a humane, “good” practice contributing to employees’ wellbeing (Brimhall

et al., 2014). In contrast, exclusion is found to have potentially harmful effects on psychological

and physical health (Jones et al., 2013). Thus, inclusive leadership is both a business case as

well as a fundamental ethical concern.

Organizational inclusion and inclusive leadership are largely theorized topics in the current

body of literature. Particularly, the plethora of inclusive leadership conceptualizations calls for

more empirical investigation and qualitative examination of the effectual leadership

characteristics. Furthermore, organizational D&I efforts are also shown to raise resistance

among employees (Thomas and Plaut, 2007; Lee et al., 2010). Therefore, I argue that

awareness and attitudes pose a central role in inclusive leadership. However, they are ignored

in the current body of research.

1.2 Research objective and questions

This research pursues to shed light on the above-articulated research gap: describe how

leaders succeed in creating a sense of inclusion and how individuals differ in their awareness

and attitudes towards D&I. The research objective is synthesized into two research questions:

1. How do leaders facilitate inclusion?

2. How do awareness and attitudes towards D&I manifest?

This study aims to contribute to the growing field of organizational inclusion literature with a

profound look into the characteristics of inclusive leadership and increase understanding of

the differences in awareness and attitudes towards D&I. The research is conducted as a study

of supervisors and their teams in two Finnish ICT consultancy companies – both with different

maturity in inclusive organizational practices.

1.3 Thesis structure

The thesis begins with a review of the existing literature around topics related to inclusion and

inclusive leadership in Chapter 2: first, diversity is defined, and diversity management is

discussed in Section 2.1; second, organizational equality is introduced, and awareness and

attitudes are examined in Section 2.2, third, inclusion is defined and covered in Section 2.3,

3

and, last, leadership and inclusive leadership literature is synthesized and reflected against

the preceding sections in Section 2.4.

Following the literature review, the methods used in this study are exhibited, and their validity

is assessed in Chapter 3. Next, the findings and the emergent theories are presented in

Chapter 4 and their connections and differences to the prior research, limitations of the study

and ideas for future research are discussed in Chapter 5. Last, the thesis is concluded with a

synthesis of the key implications and contributions in Chapter 6.

4

2 Literature Review In this chapter, the existing literature around inclusive leadership is reviewed. First, diversity

and diversity management are introduced. Second, organizational equality and awareness

and attitudes are discussed. Third, inclusion is defined, and its dynamics are synthesized.

Last, the modern leadership literature is summarized, and inclusive leadership is framed and

conceptualized.

2.1 Diversity

Prior literature presents a variety of definitions for diversity: the demographic, skill, belief,

behavioral and status differences within group members (McGrath et al., 1995, p. 23), the

aggregate differences within a social unit (Harrison and Sin, 2006, p. 196) or differences in

world views, cultural behavior, and identity (Larkey, 1996). Milliken and Martins (1996) further

specify that diversity composes of both observable – such as race, gender, age and ethnicity

– and non-observable characteristics – such as cognitive, cultural, and technical differences

between people (Kochan et al., 2003). In a business context, diversity is best defined by “the

varied perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups bring”

(Thomas and Ely, 1996, p. 80).

Relevantly for this study, diversity can be regarded as the base for organizational inequality

and exclusion. Hays-Thomas (2004, p. 12) defines diversity as the different attributes

influencing how individuals are accepted, their performance and advancement in the

organization. Similarly, Mor Barak (2014, p. 136) formulates that workplace diversity refers to

distinctive employee demographics that perceivably share a commonality of a cultural or

national context that influences their job opportunities, treatment, and promotion regardless of

their objective job qualifications. These definitions imply diversity as the potential source for

structural attitudes that subsequently generate inequalities. Notably, discrimination and

inequality basing on observable characteristics can be enforced with appropriate legislation

(Roberson, 2006), whereas non-observable cannot. Essentially, an individual might choose

not to disclose their non-observable characteristics to others – sexuality, for instance – as

means of avoiding discrimination (Mor Barak, 1999; Bairoh, 2007), whereas observable

characteristics cannot be hidden. Since the concept of diversity fundamentally describes

multeity, its complexity is not compressed to one universal definition (Ferdman et al., 2010),

but instead, diversity is best defined contextually.

5

Research shows both negative and positive effects of diversity, and some findings even

conflict with each other (Milliken and Martins, 1996; Kochan et al., 2003; Ferdman et al., 2010).

Mixed results imply that benefits of diversity come with a cost: “diversity appears to be a

double-edged sword, increasing the opportunity for creativity as well as the likelihood that

group members will be dissatisfied and fail to identify with the group” (Milliken and Martins,

1996, p. 403). Thus, diversity per se does not produce favorable organizational results (Mannix

and Neale, 2005). Furthermore, people of diverse backgrounds interpret things differently

depending on their history, personal experiences, culture, education, etc. Milliken and Martins

(1996) suggest that trouble arises from these differing perspectives, beliefs and assumptions

that seemingly correlate with observable characteristics. As a result, conflicts arise

increasingly in diverse teams and lead to lower team performance and cohesion (Milliken and

Martins, 1996; Shore et al., 2018). However, according to Mor Barak (1999), Fernandez (1991)

suggests that issues arising from diversity are, in fact, not due to the heterogeneity but rather

organizations’ inability to accommodate the diverse talent. Consequently, the role of

organizational inclusion will be introduced in Section 2.2.3.

Diversity Management

In their research, Kochan et al. (2003) identified rather few direct outcomes of diversity – both

negative, positive, and neutral – and, instead, high team performance seemed to depend

mainly on the contextual processes and the environment. Consequently, capitalizing on

diversity and addressing the inherent issues call for diversity management. Prasad and Mills

(1997) define diversity management as “systematic and planned commitment on the part of

organizations to recruit and retain employees from diverse demographic backgrounds” (p. 4).

Sabharwal (2014) adds that “[t]here is recent consensus that diversity management needs to

move from a passive (valuing diversity) to an active (diversity management) approach” (p.

200). Dietz and Petersen (2006) further hypothesize that, at the organizational level (macro-

level), diversity management moderates diversity-to-performance while, at the individual level

(micro-level), stereotypes and bias should be managed.

Bairoh (2007) distinguishes three approaches to diversity management: the practitioner, the

mainstream, and the critical approach. The practitioner view focuses on practical

implementation and business realities and, therefore, regards diversity management as

acknowledging differences but focusing on the most important ones. The mainstream

approach views diversity as demographic differences and differences in identities. Last, the

critical approach highlights that some differences are more relevant than others, for instance,

due to historical oppression. Literature proposes differing outcomes for each approach and

6

notes that diversity management is also contextually subject to the organization culture

(Bairoh, 2007).

Practices and ideologies of both diversity management and organizational inclusion (Section

2.2.3) are closely connected. However, Sabharwal (2014) found that diversity management is

not enough to improve performance at work and, therefore, inclusive practices are needed

(see also, Pless and Maak, 2004).

2.2 Organizational Equality

Research shows that representatives of minorities may become excluded from organizational

information networks and opportunities for their background (Ibarra, 1993). For example,

Pelled et al. (1999) found that racial and gender differences from the dominant employee

profile are associated with poorer inclusion in decision-making processes and information

networks. In line with these findings, Acker (2006) defines inequality in organizations as

“systematic disparities between participants in power and control over goals, resources, and

outcomes” (p. 443). Such disparity is more concretely manifested in promotions, career

advancement opportunities, reward systems, and wages, among others (Acker, 2006). In

addition, Wasserman (2014) suggests that organizational inequality also appears in more

mundane “microinequities”, e.g. underestimating and overlooking people based on race or

gender.

To broaden understanding of organizational inequalities, Acker (2006) introduces the concept

of inequality regimes: “loosely interrelated practices, processes, actions, and meanings that

result in and maintain class, gender, and racial inequalities within particular organizations.” (p.

443). Such systemic entrenched structures inherently facilitate inequality in organizations and

complicate overcoming exclusion. Research shows that even organizations with goals for

establishing equality develop inequality regimes (Scott, 2000). Thus, organizational inequality

can be considered an unavoidable challenge for organizations requiring proactive attention

and action. Consequently, organizations that opt-out from egalitarian organizational

development most likely fails to recognize the prevailing inequality regimes. Related to the

contextual nature of inequality regimes, the effects of such organizational systems are

dynamic, evolve over time and manifest in diverse forms as organizations are also subject to

cultural and political societal changes (Acker, 2006).

7

2.2.1 Organizational Equality and Diversity

Prior literature suggests a range of social constructs that are used for grounding organizational

inequality. Acker (2006) underlines class, gender, and race as the most distinctive, thoroughly

embedded, and common bases of inequality in organizations. Class refers to differences in

control and access to resources for survival, gender refers to differences in social beliefs and

identities related to men, women and other sexes, and race refers to social perceptions of

differences in physical attributes and cultural background and historical oppression (Acker,

2006). These three bases of inequality are further accompanied by infinite other attributes

such as sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and migration (Acker, 2006; Healy et al., 2018). Thus,

bases of inequality are determinants for distinguishing employee demographics that facilitate

stereotypes and are, thereby, used as justification for unequal treatment. Essentially any

attribute of diversity – observable or non-observable – may form a basis of discrimination and,

therefore, the bases of inequality are similarly diverse. Out of the infinite range of dimensions

of diversity, gender inequality is one of the most widely researched areas of inequality and

used as an exemplary case in this chapter.

Intersectionality & Individuality

Inequality is hardly based on only one attribute and instead, rather depends on multiple

attributes and the context simultaneously. For example, Pelled et al. (1999) found that being

different in a traditionally dominant demographic was harder than in a minority group. Building

on this notion, Acker (2006) introduces the concept of intersectionality that describes the

aggregate effects of the combination of personal characteristics – such as class, race, and

gender together – have on how people are treated. Intersectionality conceptualizes how

people synthesize the influence of manifold social affiliations (Wasserman, 2014). Therefore,

studying the bases of inequality is complicated due to the vast dimensionality and the infinite

combinations they pose. For the same reason, many of these combinations are also

understudied for the time being (Healy et al., 2018). Wasserman (2014) further adds that the

same attribute of an individual’s identity may be perceived differently – dominant or

marginalized – depending on the context and time.

The unique combination of socio-ethnic attributes and characteristics essentially create a

sense of individuality. Building on personal background, education, experiences and infinite

other factors, individuals have different interests and ambitions that affect their career choices

and development, which, in turn, play a role in the representation of different demographics

across organizational levels. For instance, research finds that women have stronger

preferences in work environments that facilitate working with and helping people in their work

8

(Kossek et al., 2017), consequently affecting their career choices. According to Kossek et al.

(2017), Hakim (2000) suggests that women might be more inclined to prioritize a balance

between work and family than men who put their career first and, thereby, opt-out from some

career opportunities. However, Su et al. (2009) suggest that differences in interest towards

leadership positions between men and women have reduced over the years and are close to

irrelevant today. Therefore, Kossek et al. (2017) argue that both individualistic choices and

structural, social, and environmental inequalities affect women’s career equality. Thus, even

though generalizations for different employee demographics can be drawn, it should be noted

that sources of inequality are complexly affected by myriad factors and, therefore, are to some

extent unique case-by-case.

In conclusion, individual interests and preferences also play a role in the representation of

different demographics across organizational levels. However, antecedents of

underrepresentation should be critically investigated to affirm whether individual decisions are

motivated by personal preferences or, in fact, the social pressure of the “right choice” arising

from the organizational climate. Understandably, individuality adds complexity to identifying

and observing organizational inequality. Therefore, studying organizational inequality requires

careful observation, continuous internal research and examination of the unbalanced

representation of different employee demographics.

2.2.2 Social sources of inequality

The variety of personal attributes – such as class, gender and race discussed earlier – are the

ground for socially embedded perceptions that facilitate and produce inequality through

biases, stereotypes, expectations, social roles, etc. Thus, culturally embodied conceptions

serve as the social sources of inequality. For example, women are culturally expected to

undertake the motherly nursing role in the family domain, which likely generates a work-family

conflict in allocating time between career and family (Ahuja, 2002; Trauth et al., 2009). The

pressure from both domains may be incompatible and poses trade-offs between career

advancement and family (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Niemistö et al., 2021).

Stereotypes & Unconscious Biases

Unconscious biases have a notable effect on people’s perceptions of others. Stereotypes

unknowingly affect our decision-making without necessarily having any justifiable reasoning

or rationale grounding them. Dietz and Petersen (2006) consider stereotypes and prejudices

as the most proximal sources of discrimination in organizations. Unconscious biases create

inequalities by shaping how we perceive and interact with people: research shows that gender

9

biases are linked to women’s exclusion from organizational career advancement opportunities

(Heilman, 2012). Furthermore, research suggests that stereotypes affect how women are

assessed and how their fittingness to traditionally male-typed positions is perceived compared

to their male peers (Heilman, 2012). Heilman (2012) synthesizes that such deeply embedded

biases create prescriptive norms of what different demographics should be like and what their

appropriate behavior is like – rather than what they are really like. Overall, stereotypes are

effectively present in everyday life: Acker (2006) argues that people make actively gender-,

race- and class-based presumptions of others with whom they work. Furthermore, research

confirms that culturally embedded gender stereotypes affect the interest of female youth in IT

as an education or a career path (Clayton et al., 2009). Consequently, stereotypes are not

only limited to singular organizations and are also culturally embedded.

Awareness

Since inequality is subjectively experienced, there is a disparity in perceiving inequality. For

example, McIntosh (2019) claims that the dominant demographics – such as men and whites

– are less likely to recognize their privilege. As a result, there are differences in the awareness

of inequality within and across organizations (Acker, 2006). Identifying organizational

inequality is even more challenging since members of minorities themselves may not attribute

their negative treatment to discrimination either (for example, Stangor et al., 2003).

Furthermore, depending on awareness, the understanding of the concept itself – such as

equality – varies between people. For instance, in the context of diversity and inclusion (D&I),

the meanings of the terms render blurred as they are loosely misused in organizational

communication due to the lack of comprehensive understanding (Women in Tech, 2019).

Interestingly, Acker (2006) notes that the lack of awareness may also be an intended

managerial decision, and managers may choose to hide areas of organizational inequality

purposively. Nevertheless, growing awareness is the key for driving egalitarian organizational

change, which can be improved with training and involving people in discussion and problem-

solving around discrimination (Scarborough et al., 2019).

Attitudes

Better awareness is associated with positive attitudes towards driving organizational equality.

Scarborough et al. (2019) argue that increasing awareness of discrimination has a positive

effect on both diversity policy support and the organizational climate for minorities. Studies

show that people who recognize that discrimination is disadvantageous for certain

demographics and beneficial for others are more likely to promote equality (Scarborough et

al., 2019). In their study, DuBow and Ashcraft (2016) report two recurring narratives in

10

attitudes towards gender equality: limited understanding of what gendered inequality means

and lack of awareness of how such inequality is manifested in everyday organizational life. As

a result, employees are reported to show resistance towards organizational gender equality

goals since their employees do not consider gender a significant factor in their work (Lee et

al., 2010). To address and eliminate organizational inequality, inequalities must first be

identified and, thus, an adequate degree of employee awareness is essential in facilitating

supportive attitudes. Thus, organizations should invest in training and open discussions to

increase employee awareness: Scarborough et al. (2019) argue that educating employees

about discrimination and how it produces social inequalities contributes to awareness of

organizational equality.

2.2.3 Structural sources of inequality

Structural inequality manifests in varying ways via organizational practices and processes. I

distinguish structural sources of inequality from social ones in that they are organizations’

designs and practices – as opposed to social sources that emerge organically from social

interaction involuntarily. Notably, all organizations operate contextually in their surrounding

culture and, thus, the structural sources of inequality are recursively subject to social sources

of inequality. For example, Kossek et al. (2016) suggest that cultural norms indirectly shape

how HR practices, such as performance reviews, are put into place: masculine norms are

shown to frame leadership norms in tech and, consequently, impede women from rising to

such position (DuBow and Ashcraft, 2016). Furthermore, all organizations bear a degree of

inequality stemming from organizational hierarchy (Acker, 2006): supervisors have more

power over their subordinates. Therefore, identifying structural inequalities are similarly

relevant for all organizations.

Organizational practices

Practices cover essentially “the ways of doing things” – the organizational and group norms

and processes – and therefore, play a key role in shaping the organizational culture. Practices

that structurally favor some and discriminate others are an integral reason for producing

inequalities. For example, lack of supportive networks, appropriate mentor programs,

promotion opportunities and training are reported to create “glass ceilings”, an effect

preventing women from advancing to management positions (Trauth et al., 2009). Facilitating

diversity and organizational equality calls for rethinking and creating new supportive

organizational practices such as mentoring, work-family programs, training, succession

planning and accessible work arrangements (Sabharwal, 2014). As another example, Ahuja

(2002) argues that long working hours in the ICT business conflict with pressures from the

11

family domain. Similarly, Trauth et al. (2009) suggest that balancing between work and family

complicates adjusting to working rhythms in IT. In extension, some informal networks that are

central for career advancement base on traditionally masculine activities such as golf (Ahuja,

2002). Thus, organizational practices may produce inequalities in various ways and, therefore,

should be of organizational interest.

Designing appropriate organizational practices is not straightforward either and prior literature

suggests that mechanisms designed to tackle inequality might uphold and reproduce

inequality: support structures designed for a particular employee demographic might be

interpreted to imply inability or lack of competence. Sabharwal (2014) notes that people

engaging in work-family balance programs or alternative work arrangements experience

counter-intuitive backlashes from being perceived as receiving special treatment in the

organization. Therefore, career advancement programs designed to support women’s career

advancement conflict with women’s interest in living up to the image of a model employee and,

consequently, make them opt-out of such opportunities out of the fear of reinforcing

undesirable stereotypes (Lee et al., 2010). Furthermore, Glass (2004) found that exploiting

work-family policies affected women’s wage progression consistently negatively. Since poorly

designed practices can be perceived to accommodate only a certain employee demographic,

they will not successfully address organizational inequality despite their initial goals

(Sabharwal, 2014).

Managers and organizational equality

Managers are in a central role in driving organizational equality both as gatekeepers and

messengers of organizational policy as well as mentors and role models. Unfortunately,

according to Lee et al. (2010), research shows that many male managers fail in supporting

their female subordinates’ career ambitions. Furthermore, even though organizations might

have explicit egalitarian policies, managers are not always aware of such objectives, and HR

might not know of the managerial unawareness either (Lee et al., 2010). Furthermore,

managers might not be self-motivated to drive equality and diversity policies and, therefore,

managers must be persuaded to support such organizational policies and train them to turn

the policies into practice (Lee et al., 2010). Leadership is discussed more in the context of

organizational inclusion in Section 2.4.1.

12

2.3 Inclusion

“Diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance.”

(Myers, 2017)

As the popularly quoted saying by Verna Myers (2017) goes, inclusion goes beyond

organizational diversity. Tapia (2009) states aptly: “Diversity is the mix. Inclusion is making

the mix work” (p. 12). Supporting the claim, Nishii and Rich (2014) argue that organizations

may not, in fact, benefit from diversity if they do not exercise inclusive decision-making and,

instead, reject and downplay employee input (Milliken et al., 2003; Tangirala and Ramanujam,

2008). People who feel excluded or outsiders are unlikely to voice up and contribute with their

unique perspectives (Ferdman et al., 2010). Similarly, the current body of literature suggests

that to manage issues and advantages of diversity, organizations must create an environment

of inclusion for all individuals (e.g., Mor Barak, 1999; Shore et al., 2011). Ferdman et al. (2010)

theorize that diversity, in fact, merely facilitates the benefits of inclusion, for example, by

creating “positive environments for constructive conflict and debate” (Mannix and Neale, 2005,

p. 33) – diversity being the moderator and inclusion the predictor.

In addition, inclusion contributes to job satisfaction and engagement, employee retention, trust

and well-being (Shore et al., 2011; Brimhall et al., 2014). Chung et al. (2020) found recently

that inclusion is empirically shown to contribute to work performance, helping and creativity.

Thus, in addition to being a fundamental psychological need (see also, Brewer, 1991),

organizational inclusion makes a strong business case (Bendick et al., 2010; Royal Academy

of Engineering, 2017; McKinsey & Company, 2020).

Diversity and Inclusion (D&I)

Even though many papers discuss Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) as one singular concept, the

two are essentially distinct organizational topics requiring their own kind of attention. On the

one hand, building on the definitions of diversity (Section 2.1), organizational diversity is

defined via the representation of varying identities in the organization. On the other hand,

Nishii and Rich (2014) note that “by definition, inclusion involves the elimination of

marginalization and exclusion” (p. 331). In line with this thinking, Winters (2014) draws a

distinction between the two by defining “diversity as a noun describing a state and inclusion

as a verb or action noun” (p. 206) and underlines the proactive aspect of inclusion.

Furthermore, Roberson (2006) suggests that diversity is focused on organizational

demographics, whereas inclusion on eliminating the barriers preventing employees from fully

13

participating in the organization. Despite the distinction between diversity and inclusion, the

two concepts are nonetheless inter-linked: together, they are expected to improve team

performance and creativity (Ferdman et al., 2010).

Individuality & Psychology

Whereas the concepts of segregation and integration consider groups of people, an essential

aspect of exclusion–inclusion is that they are focused on individuals, individuality, and

subjective experiences (for example, Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998; Roberson, 2006; Shore et

al., 2011). Inclusion is essentially a psychologically experienced phenomenon: “the degree to

which individuals feel a part of critical organizational processes” (Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998,

p. 48). According to the Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT; Brewer, 1991), people have a

psychological need to belong to a group as well as actualize their unique identity – i.e., be

involved as they are. From this perspective, psychological safety is a relevant factor in

facilitating feelings of inclusion: psychological safety is defined as the perception of being able

to be one’s genuine self without fear of harmful consequences (Kahn, 1990). In contrast to

inclusion, exclusion is shown to have potentially harmful effects on psychological and physical

health, regardless of whether practiced openly or ambiguously (Jones et al., 2013).

2.3.1 Dimensions of inclusion

Being a complex psychological phenomenon, inclusion has been defined via a range of

different constructs in prior literature. In their seminal work, Mor-Barak and Cherin (1998)

conceptualize inclusion as an individual’s experiences of “involvement in work groups,

participation in the decision-making process, and access to information and resources” (p.

52). Their approach to inclusion is notably focused on individuals’ experiences and

perceptions of organizational practices and structures. In contrast, (Shore et al., 2011)

conceptualize two core dimensions to inclusion, belongingness and uniqueness, building on

the Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT; Brewer, 1991). Belongingness builds on the need

for interpersonal relations (Baumeister and Leary, 1995) and uniqueness on the need for

upholding one’s identity (Snyder and Fromkin, 1980; Randel et al., 2018). Inclusion allows

every individual to be their authentic selves and collaborate with others without having to

surrender their own identities (Ferdman et al., 2010). Significantly, research adds that the

personal significance between the two dimensions might also vary by context (Correll and

Park, 2005).

14

Figure 1: Dimensions of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011)

As conceptualized by Shore et al. (2011), the dimensions of inclusion are widely recognized

in academia and convincingly empirically validated by Chung et al. (2020) in their recent

research. As opposed to the functional approach by Mor-Barak and Cherin (1998), Shore et

al. (2011) build their definition on the psychological experience of inclusion in both social

interactions and organizational structures. Therefore, I suggest that the sense of inclusion

emerges from both structural and social elements. Furthermore, I suggest that dimensions

presented in the traditional inclusion literature – such as involvement in decision-making,

access to organizational resources and organizational commitment – are crucial

organizational structures facilitating these feelings, but, in its essence, inclusion emerges from

the feelings of belongingness and uniqueness instead. Basing on Shore et al. (2011), Randel

et al. (2018) synthesize that practicing organizational inclusion, therefore, entails accepting

every individual as they are and involving them equally in organizational processes

(belongingness) as well as making everybody’s voice heard and recognizing their unique input

(uniqueness) (see also, Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998; Hope Pelled et al., 1999). Thus, I define

organizational inclusion as the practice of facilitating a sense of inclusion – i.e., feelings of

belongingness and uniqueness – through various organizational activities, structures,

processes, and efforts. The distinction between inclusion as a psychological phenomenon and

as an organizational practice is vital for building theory – the practice of inclusion being the

focus of this study.

15

Organizational equality and inclusion

Inclusion is also tightly connected to organizational equality: an organization cannot be

inclusive if its employees have unequal access to the organization’s resources and information

unjust possibilities to participate in decision-making (e.g., Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998; Nishii

and Rich, 2014; Sabharwal, 2014; Dennissen et al., 2019) or are otherwise overtly or covertly

discriminated socially or structurally. Underlining the relation between the two, Shore et al.

(2018) propose two complementary perspectives to driving inclusion: 1) eliminating inequality

in decision-making and 2) presuming that discrimination is systemically ingrained and

manifested and should therefore be addressed. Notably, inclusion does not limit to

organizational equality or fairness but instead goes beyond to cover themes such as

encouraging expressing opinions (Sabharwal, 2014), enabling effectual contribution to critical

organizational processes (Miller, 1998; Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998; Roberson, 2006), and

establishing organization-wide experience of social belongingness (Shore et al., 2011; Nishii

and Rich, 2014). Furthermore, according to Wasserman et al. (2008), Holvino, Ferdman, and

Merrill-Sands (2004) articulate that inclusion entails both equality and justice as well as

actively involving all people and integrating diversity to the integrity of the everyday

organizational life. In other words, organizational equality ensures that everybody can

participate in organizational activities, whereas inclusion actively involves and encourages

everybody to participate. Basing on these definitions, I propose that organizational equality is

the ground for exercising inclusion.

Levels of inclusion

Church et al. (2014) suggest that D&I should be incorporated into everything an organization

does. Thus, inclusion must be exercised holistically at all levels of the organization: individuals

(micro), groups (meso), and organizational processes (macro) (Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998;

Booysen, 2014). At the micro-level, exercising inclusion requires the individuals’ ability to

recognize and take the perspective of others without losing one’s own views (Wasserman,

2014), e.g., empathy and emotional intelligence, to facilitate a pluralistic co-evolving

organization culture (Mor Barak, 2000). At the meso-level, individuals should feel included in

the relevant group processes, decision-making and access to resources (e.g., Mor-Barak and

Cherin, 1998). Finally, at the macro-level, organizational practices and structures should drive

organizational equality, inclusive organization climate (Nishii and Rich, 2014) and inclusive

organizational practices and systems (Winters, 2014). Thus, establishing and fostering

inclusion is a manifold and holistic organizational activity – requiring an appropriate

organizational climate and practices, effort and commitment from individuals, and, particularly,

skillful leadership, among others.

16

2.3.2 Organization-level inclusion

Numerous organizational elements contribute to organizational inclusion spanning from

practices to organization culture. Inequalities in organizational practices are discussed in

Section 2.2.2. Next, the relevant topics are reviewed in the scope of this study.

Diversity strategy

In their seminal work, Ely and Thomas (2001) introduce the “integration-and-learning”

approach to diversity where cultural diversity is considered as a valuable asset and a learning

opportunity for the organization that should be utilized as insight for rethinking even the

organizational primary functions. This approach to diversity appreciates differing viewpoints

and values diversity, thereby fostering uniqueness and facilitating cross-cultural learning in

the organization (Ely and Thomas, 2001). Importantly, Ely and Thomas (2001) further

underline that integration-and-learning was the only approach that managed to preserve

advantages of diversity as opposed to “access-and-legitimacy”, that eventually reproduced

organizational inequalities, and “discrimination-and-fairness”, that takes a homogenous

approach that ignores diversity and uniqueness. Additionally, Mor Barak and Daya (2014)

state that inclusive organizations adjust their values and norms to welcome new employees

instead of forcing diversity to reconcile with the existing dominant culture. Thus, organizations

pursuing inclusion should take on the integration-and-learning strategy to drive and embed an

inclusive mindset both culturally and structurally.

D&I commitment

Prior research further argues that commitment from top management and senior leadership is

essential for driving inclusion (Roberson, 2006; Sabharwal, 2014). Organizations require

committed leadership for facilitating inclusion at all organizational levels (Miller, 1998; Pless

and Maak, 2004; Shore et al., 2011). Furthermore, organizational commitment includes

designing organizational policies for equity (Bendick et al., 2010). However, without committed

leadership, policies alone do not necessarily convert to an inclusive environment (Sabharwal,

2014).

Organizational climate

Whereas organizational culture focuses on the organizationally embedded values,

assumptions and values, organizational climate aims to describe the organizational reality

17

through static dimensions that are rooted in the organizational values (Denison, 1996).

Furthermore, organization culture takes a social constructionist perspective and a sociological

and anthropological approach, while climate depicts an ahistorical snapshot of the current

dynamics from a psychological viewpoint (Denison, 1996). According to Boekhorst (2015), L.

R. James et al. (1990) suggest that culture is framed by the system and climate by the

personal, individualistic frame. Therefore, the individualistic frame is taken to discuss the

sense of organizational inclusion.

Nishii and Rich (2014) synthesize that inclusive climate constitutes of three elemental

dimensions: (1) organizational practices reinforcing employees’ image of favorable behavior,

(2) interaction with others that shape collective understanding of the environment and (3)

norms and policies that moderate behavior. Building on these dimensions, organizational

practices and norms may delegitimize organizational inequalities by removing linkage

between favorable socio-cultural status and privileged access to organizational resources and,

as a result, eliminating status differences between demographics (Ridgeway and Correll,

2006). From an individuals’ point of view, an inclusive climate holds expectations, practices

and norms celebrating diversity and allows holding multiple identities (the uniqueness

dimension) as well as endorses participating in organizational decision-making and sharing

unique viewpoints (the belongingness dimension) (Nishii, 2013). Thus, norms and practices

facilitating feelings of uniqueness and belongingness in everyday organizational life foster an

inclusive climate (Boekhorst, 2015). It is also worth noticing that group-level and individual-

level inclusion are also subject to organizational norms and practices.

2.3.3 Group-level inclusion

Even though inclusion is experienced subjectively and individually, Jansen et al. (2014) found

that the group has the agency in facilitating feelings of inclusion as opposed to individuals and

is, therefore, central in facilitating the sense of inclusion. Stereotypes and biases creating

group norms and beliefs are described in Section 2.2.1.

Group practices

Key work group activities for inclusion compose of the widely supported dimensions proposed

by Mor-Barak and Cherin (1998): involving group members, allowing participation in decision-

making (see also, Sabharwal, 2014) – for example, regarding the ways of working or

timetables – and provide access to critical information and resources (Nishii and Rich, 2014;

Sabharwal, 2014) – for example, through formal and informal discussions. The inequalities in

these processes are discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.2.

18

Social insider circle

Social interaction with the work environment mediates the feeling of belongingness and

uniqueness. Pelled et al. (1999) propose that inclusion is “the degree to which an employee

is accepted and treated as an insider by others in a work system” (p. 1014). Social circles are

important as Mor-Barak and Cherin (1998) also pinpoint informal discussions as one source

for critical information in organizations. To facilitate the feeling of being an insider, work groups

should accept diverse individuals (Shore et al., 2011), allow their members to express various

identities (Nishii, 2013) and encourage their diverse opinions in decision-making (Sabharwal,

2014; Winters, 2014). In general, inclusive work groups are committed to integrating diversity

and new cultural identities to expand their expertise and skillset (e.g., Ely & Thomas, 2001).

2.3.4 Individual-level inclusion

Inclusion at the micro-level consists of the individual’s relations with other employees in which

employees’ cultural competence, relational eloquence and, fundamentally, awareness and

attitudes are in crucial roles.

Cultural competence and relational eloquence

Hammer (2009) defines cultural competencies essentially as the ability to recognize both

cultural differences and similarities in values, beliefs, and practices. Developing cultural

competence requires awareness of microinequities (Rowe, 1990) and recognize both

conscious and unconscious biases in own thinking and behavior (Winters, 2014) – e.g., critical

self-awareness and reflection (see also, Ferdman and Roberts, 2014).

Complementing cultural competence, relational eloquence is the skill of participating in others’

sense- and meaning-making processes and take others’ perspectives without losing one’s

own (Wasserman, 2005). This ability is equally essential with cultural competence as collective

meaning-making with people from very different backgrounds requires attentiveness to all the

possible interpretations of the shared reality (Wasserman et al., 2008) – e.g., critical relational

awareness.

Awareness and attitudes

Awareness and attitudes (see also Section 2.2.1) are important in both cultural competence

and relational eloquence. Mor Barak (2000) argues that employees’ biased perceptions and

behaviors are the core obstacles in putting inclusive organizational policies into action.

19

Synthetizing Ferdman and Roberts (2014) and Wasserman (2004), Gallegos (2014) suggests

that inclusive individuals reflect on their own identities, recognize identities of others and

communicate despite the differences in the contextual organization environment. Similarly,

Wasserman (2014) suggests that such skills call for the ability to engage in dialogic interaction

and critically reflect own viewpoints and the underlying biases and assumptions. Thus,

inclusive people develop their self-awareness and have a critical attitude towards their own

behavior and learning.

2.3.5 Synthesis of organizational inclusion

Building on the dimensions of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011), organizational levels of inclusion

(e.g., Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998; Booysen, 2014), aspects of organizational equality

discussed in Section 2.2 and all other literature covered hitherto (see particularly, Wasserman

et al., 2008; Winters, 2014), I propose the following conceptual synthesis of the dimensions,

elements and levels of organizational inclusion (Figure 2): an individual experiences inclusion

through the feelings of belongingness and uniqueness (dimensions) that arise from the

structural and social constructs of the organization (elements) in interaction with other

individuals (micro), the surrounding group (meso) and the organization as a whole (macro)

(levels). On an important note, the structural and social elements are recursively inter-linked

since structural inequality reproduces social inequality and vice versa.

Figure 2: Dimensions, Elements and Levels of Organizational Inclusion

20

2.4 Leadership and Inclusion

There is no unified or standardized definition of leadership, and the research field is

widespread (Alvesson, 2019): leadership is defined in various ways and discussed through

various constructs in the current body of literature (Yukl, 1989). Essentially, the ontological

and epistemological approaches to leadership are debated: what is leadership, and how can

we study it. In this chapter, a brief framed introduction to the relevant leadership literature is

synthesized and, later, discussed in more detail from the organizational inclusion perspective.

From the traditional, entity-based perspective, leadership is ontologically bound to logical

entities such as leaders and followers that pursue shared goals (Drath et al., 2008).

Consequently, leadership is seen more as a predicate by a subject, i.e., actions by an agent.

Despite the straightforward approach, the setting further poses a question of framing: what

exactly is regarded as leadership. As a result, a broad variety of elements have been studied

in prior research, such as leaders’ traits, influence and behaviors, among many (Yukl, 1989).

In contrast, the social constructionist approach (Fairhurst and Grant, 2010) challenges this

traditional, objective epistemological view and the largely outcome-focused, functionalist

approach to leadership (Gioia and Pitre, 1990). Social constructionism posits that social

realities – and thereby leadership – are subjective and construed in reciprocal, intersubjective

interaction of negotiating and contesting meanings (Fairhurst and Grant, 2010). In other words,

leadership is a reality that is intersubjectively created, shaped, and maintained through

interaction (Fairhurst and Grant, 2010) as opposed to the functional view of leadership being

experienced through one objective shared reality, putting relations over the agents to the focal

point. In its broad field, social constructionist theories have taken their own paths to, for

example, leadership-as-practice (Raelin, 2011) and relational leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

2.4.1 Relational Leadership

Since inclusion is produced in interaction, relationality is a significant aspect of inclusion, and

inclusive leadership is fundamentally a relational activity. Relational leadership theory posits

that leadership is fundamentally a social process. There are two avenues to this theory (Uhl-

Bien, 2006): 1) from the entity-based perspective, realities are interpreted in interaction

through participants’ personal perceptions, attributes, and behaviors, whereas 2) from the

relation-based perspective, individuals’ realities along with the social surrounding are created

and shaped in interaction (Uhl-Bien, 2006). In other words, the ontological difference between

the two is that the entity-based perspective posits that leadership lies in the characteristics

and behaviors that shape the leadership relation, whereas the relational perspective

21

recognizes that leadership emerges from the interactional process of co-creating realities

reciprocally and contextually (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Leader-member exchange (LMX; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995) is a predominant, entity-based

relational leadership theory particularly focused on studying and describing the relational

aspect of leadership. According to LMX theory, leaders and members engage in a dyadic

relationship in which influence increments over the evolving relationship and, as a result, the

so-called leadership occurs (Uhl-Bien, 2006). The straightforward theory takes a subject-

object stance to relationality and characterizes the entity qualities and attributes of the

relationship from the subject’s perspective. From the organizational inclusion perspective,

leaders impact how employees see themselves: members who feel validated by their leader

are more confident and motivated (Nishii and Mayer, 2009). Building on LMX theory, Nishii

and Mayer (2009) hypothesize that by valuing each member of the work group, leaders

communicate appreciation, and employees are more likely to accept each other as valued

peers. Through senses of appreciation and being accepted, employees feel that they can be

their unique selves and still belong to the group (e.g., Shore et al., 2011). Thus, leaders

effectively mediate inclusion in their interaction with employees (Brimhall et al., 2017).

However, Uhl-Bien (2006) argues that the entity-based LMX theory is outdated and, instead,

a congruent theory, Relational Leadership Theory (RLT), employing both the entity-based and

the relational perspective and acknowledging the dynamic contextual, relational side should

be applied. In RLT, Uhl-Bien (2006) defines relational leadership as “a social influence process

through which emergent coordination (i.e., evolving social order) and change (i.e., new values,

attitudes, approaches, behaviours, ideologies, etc.) are constructed and produced.” (p. 668)

Similarly, Leadership-as-Practice (L-a-P) is a relational leadership theory positing that

leadership emerges particularly from the leader's practices and their relational, moral and

emotionally experienced attributes rather than the traits and characteristics of the leader

(Raelin, 2011). Thus, leadership is also a shared process between the “leader” and the

members, and practices are essentially manifestations of the shared reality through which

leadership is conveyed. Taken the traditional approach to inclusion by Mor-Barak and Cherin

(1998), inclusion is mediated by inclusive practices and, consequently, inclusive leadership

may be examined from the L-a-P perspective where practices are the origin of the socially

collaboratively construed leadership (Raelin, 2011). From this perspective, inclusive

leadership may manifest in inclusive decision-making, meeting, or rewarding practices, for

example.

22

2.4.2 Inclusive Leadership

Some researchers suggest that inclusive leadership is an expansion to diversity management

(see Section 2.1) that focuses on working out the trouble arising from a diverse workforce

(Booysen, 2014; Nkomo, 2014; O’Donovan, 2017). Nonetheless, inclusion spans beyond

diversity management (Sabharwal, 2014) by embracing diversity and including everybody in

organizational activities (Pless & Maak, 2004; Sabharwal, 2014), inviting and appreciating

contribute from diverse people (Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006) and empowering them to

contribute to their full potential (Roberson, 2006; Sabharwal, 2014; Winters, 2014).

Since inclusion requires continuous attention and changes in organizational culture and

everyday practices, leadership plays a key role in creating a sense of inclusion (Cottrill et al.,

2014) and shaping an inclusive organizational climate (Wasserman et al., 2008; Nishii, 2013).

Similarly, Chung et al. (2020) found that inclusive leadership and organizational climate are in

a notable role in facilitating inclusion in work groups which are essentially the immediate work

environments for individuals (Jansen et al., 2014). Sabharwal (2014) further denotes that

organizational policies and structures facilitating diversity are insufficient for increasing

organizational performance and, instead, inclusive leadership endorsing inclusive climate is

required.

Inclusive leadership is also reported to enhance innovation activities (Javed et al., 2019) and

engagement in creative work via psychological safety (Carmeli et al., 2010), increases team

performance by reducing perceptions of professional status differences in professionally

diverse work groups (Mitchell et al., 2015), and reduces employee turnover (Nishii and Mayer,

2009).

Inclusive leadership skills

Inclusive leadership calls for a wide variety of skills and behavior spanning beyond assimilation

strategies to empowerment, participation as well as tackling exclusion and marginalization

(Booysen, 2014). According to Booysen (2014), Mor Barak (2011) and Ferdman (2010) argue

that inclusive leadership requires relational skills, collaboration, transformative cultural

leadership, as well as engaging all employee demographics (see also, Wasserman et al.,

2008). Literature further discusses openness, availability, and accessibility as important

inclusive leader behaviors towards others (Carmeli et al., 2010; Javed et al., 2019) and

communicating to employees that their opinions are truly valued and invited (Nembhard &

Edmondson, 2006). Such leader behaviors are argued to facilitate psychological safety

(Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006; Carmeli et al., 2010; Javed et al., 2019). Wasserman et

al. (2008) add that fostering inclusive culture further requires leadership flexibility, self-

23

awareness, mindfulness and even the ability to be vulnerable. They also denote that the

transformative leadership required for creating an inclusive climate raises almost unavoidable

resistance with which leaders must be comfortable. Altogether, Booysen (2014) argues that

inclusive leadership development should build on a balanced mix of competencies (e.g.,

relational skills), knowledge (e.g., awareness) and mindset (e.g., attitude and authenticity).

Authentic Leadership (AL)

Winters (2014, p. 222) argues that “[t]hose with the power to drive inclusion must want to do

it. No amount of coaching, coaxing, or coercion can convince the die-hard recalcitrant.”

Consequently, organizational policies and management strategies are unlikely to enforce

inclusion alone if leaders do not authentically embrace the importance of inclusion and,

therefore, the role of Authentic Leadership (AL; Avolio and Gardner, 2005) is introduced. In

their research, Cottrill et al. (2014) found evidence that authentic leaders contribute saliently

to employees’ perceptions of inclusion by endorsing them to be their selves consistently with

the AL theory (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Furthermore, AL underlines self-awareness and

relational transparency (i.e., openness and sincerity) as essential leadership skills (Walumbwa

et al., 2008), which resonate with inclusive leadership development and the need for self-

reflection as suggested by Booysen (2014) and Winters (2014). Whereas leadership is often

discussed from the perspective of interpersonal interaction, authentic leadership is focused

on leaders’ internal qualities (Cottrill et al., 2014). Notably, AL is also criticized for its gloomy

ideology and arguable lack of business applicability and realism (Alvesson, 2019).

2.4.3 Inclusive leadership levels

Building on the previous chapter on organizational inclusion, inclusive leadership is essentially

about facilitating feelings of belongingness and uniqueness (Shore et al., 2011). Furthermore,

as presented in the synthesis in Section 2.3.5, inclusive leadership should operate and cover

all aspects of different organizational levels – micro, meso and macro – horizontally and

vertically (Booysen, 2014). On the one hand, leaders are vital in interpreting and putting

organizational policies and goals into practice at the grassroots level (Winters, 2014). On the

other hand, leaders have a significant position in the work group (e.g., Randell et al., 2018)

and individual relations (e.g., Cottrill et al., 2014). Thus, inclusive leaders must operate on

multiple organizational levels along the dimensions of inclusion – i.e., engage in aspects

synthesized in Figure 2 – while also practicing active self-reflection and development to

facilitate personal inclusive growth (Wasserman et al., 2008). Due to the need for holistic

24

organizational support, Randel et al. (2016, p. 229) add that “without clear signals that the

organization itself is inclusive and fair, leaders are not able to inspire greater helping by

compensating for these negative perceptions among racioethnic minorities.” – neither

leadership nor organizational actions alone create the sense of inclusion, and both are needed

(see also, Sabharwal, 2014).

Leadership at the individual level

At the individual level, inclusive leadership is essentially exercising inclusion in one’s own

behavior: according to Booysen (2014), Hannum et al. (2010) suggest that inclusive leaders

must be unbiased, respect everybody’s perceptions and drive fairness and equality.

Therefore, the ability to understand where others are coming from (cultural competence) and

relationally co-building a shared reality (relational eloquence) are in a key role in inclusive

leadership (Wasserman et al., 2008) as well as the awareness and attitudes to facilitate these

capabilities (see Section 2.2.2). Furthermore, exercising inclusion calls for continuous learning

of diversity and exploring differences between people (Wasserman et al., 2008). People who

are more culturally conscious and learning-oriented might behave more inclusively and,

thereby, act as better leaders (Church et al., 2014). The above-suggested skills build

essentially on understanding individuality and, therefore, some also emphasize the role of

emotional intelligence in leadership (for example, Goleman et al., 2001).

In pursuing unbiased and inclusive behavior, leaders must be aware of how exclusion and

inequality manifest. Therefore, leaders should be able to recognize and address

microinequities (Rowe, 1990) and microaggressions (Sue, 2010) that manifest in day-to-day

interactions and behavior through devaluing or insulting a person for their demographic

purposively or accidentally (Sue et al., 2007). Last, in addition to exercising inclusion of others

directly, leaders act as role models and, thereby, endorse inclusive behavior in others (Randel

et al., 2018), thereby fostering an inclusive organizational climate (Boekhorst, 2015).

Leadership at the group level

Building on the dimensions of inclusion – i.e., belongingness and uniqueness – Randel et al.

(2018) suggest five leadership practices for thriving inclusion. They argue that belongingness

is fostered by (1) supporting team members, (2) driving experiences of fairness and equality,

and (3) offering possibilities for participating in relevant decision-making. Supporting includes

helping employees in their ambitions (Randel et al., 2018) and facilitating their psychological

safety (Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006). Through equality and fairness, each member is

communicated that they are a valued part of the community (Sabharwal, 2014; Shore et al.,

25

2011). In addition, leaders should actively reflect on their decision-making and the unexpected

inequality they might create (Randel et al., 2018). Last, shared decision-making by consulting

group members facilitates the feeling of belongingness (Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006;

Nishii, 2013; Roberson, 2006) through having everyone’s voice heard. Nembhard and

Edmondson (2006) suggest that both acts of inviting to contribute and showing appreciation

are essential for communicating that individuals are genuinely valued. Regarding the sense of

uniqueness, Randel et al. (2018) promote (1) encouraging diversity in contributions to the

team and (2) supporting team members in bringing up their diverse, unique skillset and views

in the team. Both encouraging practices communicate valuing uniqueness in teams (e.g.,

Shore et al., 2011; Winters, 2014).

Since leaders act simultaneously as facilitators, moderators, as well as coaches and mentors,

they are essentially responsible for creating an integrative and encouraging working climate

for diverse individuals (Pless and Maak, 2004). Therefore, according to Booysen (2014),

Hannum et al. (2010) suggest that leaders should also be conscious of changes in group

dynamics to facilitate an inclusive climate.

Leadership at the organizational level

Since leaders are in an integral position in shaping organizational culture, they should review

and question organizational norms to eliminate their harmful effects on inclusion (Wasserman

et al., 2008). Wasserman et al. (2008) theorize that a key leadership challenge is identifying

when to intervene in organizational realities that produce organizational inequalities.

Furthermore, changing norms requires setting new effective rules, which creates confusion

among employees of what is appropriate behavior and, therefore, leaders should exercise

explicit rational argumentation (Wasserman et al., 2008). Leaders should facilitate more

extensive open discussion to grow awareness of the different ways people think (Wasserman

et al., 2008) and recognize larger patterns in organizational practices – such as hiring,

promotion and resignation – and, significantly, equality and inclusion issues in them (Gallegos,

2014).

2.4.4 Synthesis of inclusive leadership

From a leadership theory perspective, the social constructionist theory and relational

leadership are central in understanding inclusive leadership: similar to a climate of inclusion,

leadership is essentially construed socially and contextually through interaction and relation.

Furthermore, since this study aims to answer how leaders facilitate inclusion and provide an

26

understanding of the characteristics of inclusive leadership, leadership is approached from a

functional, efforts-to-outcome focused perspective while covering both the entity, practice, and

relational aspects of leadership. The L-a-P perspective was left out of the scope of this study,

and, essentially, the entity-based relational leadership theory is employed in characterizing

inclusive leadership. Sense of belongingness and uniqueness, i.e., inclusion, is experienced

through a favorable organizational climate as well as leaders’ characteristics, skills, behaviors,

and actions – both of which are further reciprocally interconnected. Thus, in this study, the

term ‘inclusive leadership’ refers to all means of facilitating the sense of inclusion at the

different organizational levels through the dimensions and elements of organizational

inclusion.

3 Methods In this chapter, the research methods selected for conducting this study are described and

grounded. First, the ontology and epistemology of the research topic and the researcher’s pre-

understanding is discussed. Second, the selected research design is introduced, and, last,

methods employed in the data collection and analysis are described.

3.1 Ontology and epistemology

The selected research methods pose notable ontological and epistemological questions since

the two central research topics – inclusion and leadership – can only be examined by

interpreting the interviewees’ subjective narratives. Phenomenology is a research approach

that focuses on examining human experiences (Laine, 2010). In phenomenology, experiences

are regarded as the relation between an agent and their reality and context (Laine, 2010). In

the context of inclusion, experiences are always bound to a subjective observer and their

interaction with their reality instead of them existing objectively “out there” (Gioia and Pitre,

1990). According to phenomenology, the diversity of different subjective experiences are

studied via meanings (Laine, 2010): meanings reflect humans reasoning of their experiences.

Furthermore, meanings have a communal dimension, a connection to socially, culturally, or

contextually-bound intersubjective understanding (Laine, 2010). Therefore, meanings can be

exchanged, and people can understand each other – although to only some extent. Thus, the

aim of phenomenological research is to explore subjective, unique experiences and discover

27

the shared meanings of the experiences (Laine, 2010). Thus, in this research context, the

interviewees’ perceptions of leadership and inclusion are bound to their unique, subjective

experience of what they effectually consider as leadership and being included and, essentially,

how they interpret the experiences through their personal and shared meanings. In other

words, what their personal and communally shared meaning of inclusion and leadership is.

Hermeneutics and researcher bias

I, as a researcher, am essentially subject to my own personal background, experiences,

understanding from prior literature and, consequently, meanings of leadership and inclusion

through which I interpret others articulation of their subjective experiences. The theory of

hermeneutics focuses precisely on this paradox in phenomenological research (Laine, 2010):

interviewees express their meanings in socially, culturally or contextually fitting ways which

the researcher then interprets through their own pre-understanding. Building on the

hermeneutic theory (Laine, 2010), the tricksome chain of formulation and interpretation

between the research subject and the researcher (Figure 3) poses several points of possible

error: 1) the researcher interprets prior literature of inclusion, 2) the researcher aims to

formulate the interview questions in an understandable and communicative way that

resonates with the interviewees’ experience of the topic, 3) interviewee interprets the

questions and its aim, 4) interview verbalizes their unique experiences to the best of their

ability and last, 5) the researcher interprets the answer to the question.

Figure 3: Chain of Formulation and Interpretation (modified from Laine, 2010)

By recognizing that perfect objectivity is likely never achieved, the researcher comes more

aware of their own subjectivity and is more apt in entertaining and evaluating alternative

interpretations of the interview data – importantly for hermeneutics (Laine, 2010). The data

collection and analysis are unavoidably subject to my own bias and interpretation of both the

existing literature and interview data. Furthermore, being a white heterosexual male in Finland,

I belong to dominant demography and enjoy many privileges in the sense that I have no

experience of discrimination, and I’m unlikely to recognize all systemic inequality that has not

affected me. Therefore, identifying and critically reflecting on my personal viewpoints and

denoting that I am unlikely to relate with all the experiences of people from very different

backgrounds is essential in building an understanding of inclusion and interpreting others’

28

experiences. Delving into the D&I topics has been a remarkable learning and reflection

process for me and continues to be in terms of both recognizing my own biases and

understanding others better. To minimize my personal bias and broaden my perspective, I

conducted three additional interviews with specialists from inclusion consultancy before the

actual data collection. These interviews helped me reflect on my own pre-understanding from

my own experiences and existing literature against the organizational realities that the

specialists had explored and their interpretations.

3.2 Research design

The research is an inductive qualitative study. Inclusion is essentially a psychologically

experienced subjective, abstract phenomenon and, therefore, qualitative methods were

selected to capture the rich, complex and diverse experiences and perceptions of the research

subjects (Alvesson, 2003; Gioia et al., 2013). In addition to employing qualitative data in the

research, a qualitative approach was selected in a broader sense (Eisenhardt and Graebner,

2007) to describe the behavioral qualities and social constructs of inclusive leadership and

reflecting the findings against the current body of literature. Since construct validity (i.e.,

internal validity; Eisenhardt, 1989) in exploring individuals’ personal experiences of abstractly

comprehended ‘inclusion’ with only a limited number of interviews is arguably low, the

research focuses rather on discovering the subjective elements and qualities behind the sense

of inclusion inductively (see Section 3.1 for ontological and epistemological reflection).

In the current body of literature, inclusive leadership practices are largely conceptualized and

essentially lack empirical examination: it is unclear how the idea of organizational inclusion

translates into practices and behaviors, how does inclusivity show in leader characteristics,

qualities and the leader-member relation, and how inclusive leadership is essentially

exercised. Therefore, an inductive research approach was selected to explore the phenomena

and allow undiscovered elements and theory to emerge from the data. Since the sense of

inclusion and the perception of leadership are both strongly bound to subjective realities (see

also Section 3.1), individual experiences were selected as the unit of analysis.

Taken that prior literature was employed in formulating the research approach and gaining an

understanding of inclusion, the research employs some elements of abductive research as

well. Prior literature was mainly used in formulating the interview guide. However, new

elements were allowed to arise from the data inductively in the analysis phase, irrespective of

prior literature. Existing theories were again reflected against the study findings in the analysis

phase to assess construct validity and broaden interpretation. Furthermore, as suggested by

29

Eisenhardt (1989), data collection overlapped with data analysis and studying the interview

data was started already in parallel while the data collection was still ongoing. The interview

approach was then refined accordingly as my understanding of the research topic evolved in

the process.

Sample company descriptions

The research sample composed of two companies. A two-company setting was selected to

investigate the key elements of inclusive leadership in one organization with little effort and

another with a lot of effort towards organizational inclusion and, ultimately, examine the

individuals’ D&I awareness and attitudes in the differing organizations. Thus, the two-

organization-setting provided a broader perspective to inclusive leadership while also

underlining distinctive elements of organizational culture.

Both selected companies are internationally operating Finland-based ICT consultancy

companies with over 500 personnel. Both companies have diverse personnel in terms of

gender and nationality but are mainly dominated by Finnish males, similar to the Finnish ICT

industry. Importantly, their profiles differed in efforts and ambitions towards D&I in the following

way:

• Company A: The company has recognized the importance of inclusion already a few

years back and has embedded it in their strategy and internal goals, conducted internal

research on their state of inclusion, followed key inclusion metrics periodically, and

trained managers on D&I.

• Company B: The company has identified the relevance of organizational inclusion,

launched a goal to improve diversity, and incorporated D&I topics in annual employee

training. However, HR has not yet taken organization-wide action to properly

communicate and implement the D&I agenda at the grass-root level and into everyday

organizational life.

3.3 Data collection

Since inclusion builds on personal experiences and perceptions, employees are the principal

source of information for observing and assessing inclusive climate (Nishii and Rich, 2014).

Thus, to explore the subjective experiences, interviews were selected as the primary data

source. The research sample consisted of supervisors, employees, and HR representatives

from the companies' Finnish organizations. Altogether 21 people were interviewed: from both

companies, three supervisors and two to three of their employees were selected. The sample

30

composition is presented in Appendix 2. As underlined by Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007),

the number of interviews aimed to provide a feasibly broad scale of perspectives on the

research phenomenon from the relevant informants and, thereby, minimize research bias.

Moreover, an HR representative from both companies – 2 people in total – were interviewed

to gain more insight into the state and role of inclusion in the organizational environment.

Additional, three more informal interviews were conducted with experts in D&I consultancy to

increase my understanding of the research topic before the actual data collection phase.

Ethicality and legality were considered in data collection by requesting a written consent for

the research terms and interviewee rights from all participants. The research consent

document (presented in Appendix 3) was delivered to the participants before the interviews.

The interview data was also anonymized and handled confidentially while following the privacy

policies of the research employer, Tekniikan Akateemiset TEK.

The research sample was selected purposively so that both the managers and the employees

represented the organization as diversely as possible in terms of both their observable and

(known disclosed) non-observable characteristics. The selections were made in collaboration

with the respective companies, and similar to the ICT industry, the sample was somewhat

male-dominated: 14 men and 7 women, of which altogether 5 were born abroad. Due to the

ICT consultancy work setting, the teams differed in how closely the supervisor was involved

in the daily activities of their employees: most supervisors were not involved in the same client

projects with their employees and, thus, were not actively present in the work group context.

Furthermore, one of the teams consisted of employees who had their own subordinate teams

and, in that sense, differed from the other employees. No other criteria were used in selecting

the interviewees since the research aimed to explore the diversity of experiences of inclusion.

As promoted by Gioia et al. (2013), a semi-structured interview approach was selected to suit

the study setting. Semi-structured interviews are advantageous in obtaining comparable

responses around a structured interview guide while discovering and elaborating on elements

outside the initial structure with more detailed questions (Qu and Dumay, 2011). In other

words, the semi-structured interviews follow a thematic approach while focusing more on the

research topics than the interview guide itself (Qu and Dumay, 2011). Furthermore, the

interviews relied on open-ended questions to facilitate interviewees’ unguided perspectives

and open course of discussion (Qu and Dumay, 2011). Understanding from existing literature

was essentially employed in formulating the interview questions, and the aim of each interview

section was clarified separately to guide the interview in meeting the research questions and

steering the elaborating questions. Furthermore, the interview guides were structured in a

bottom-up fashion: first, giving a lot of room for interpretation with more open-ended questions

31

and then, posing more framed questions with more direct questions to improve the description

of the phenomena and comparability of the interviews (Qu and Dumay, 2011). However, a lot

of room was left for differing interpretations to examine the individualistic perceptions and

produce inductive results outside existing theories. To improve the research approach and

facilitate new emergent themes, the interview guides were adjusted, reformulated and

expanded according to observations from data analysis that was done concurrently with the

data collection (Eisenhardt, 1989).

The most apparent issue in the interviews is the centrality of language in narrating experiences

of inclusion. The term ‘inclusion’ has no rooted Finnish translation, and the word is further

rendered somewhat blurred in vague organizational communication and loose definition

(Women in Tech, 2019). Thus, ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’ are understood in varying ways, and,

for example, some interviewees perceived diversity as solely a gender matter and inclusion

being about hiring women. Consequently, the interviewees give unavoidably differing

descriptions of what they perceived as ‘inclusion’. Therefore, the interviews focused primarily

on exploring the interviewee’s meanings through a range of perspectives and identifying

reoccurring elements in their interpretation of inclusion. In other words, the interview guides

were purposively designed to approach the experiences of inclusion from different angles. The

interview guides built on concepts from prior literature and the researcher’s choice and

included themes such as sense of belongingness, involvement, feeling like an insider/outsider,

uniqueness, cohesion, work satisfaction, equality, appreciation, acceptance, and self-

actualization. Covering a range of perspectives was important since using certain words in

questions seemed to eventually resonate more with the interviewees’ phenomenological

meanings, whereas others not so much.

Honesty, openness, and self-reflection were also encouraged in the interviews. The

interviewees were urged to embrace their own perspectives and personal experiences of

inclusion instead of merely reading out the formal organizational policies and guidelines.

Notably, the open-ended questions steered the interviews to elaborate on the concrete

everyday experiences and examples of inclusion and inclusive leadership. The interviews

were conducted through video calls with Microsoft Teams and lasted from 45 to 60 minutes.

To reflect the interviewees’ authentic voices and avoid drawing preliminary interpretations of

the interviews (Gioia et al., 2013), the interviews were recorded with the interviewees’

permission and transcribed verbatim.

32

3.4 Data analysis

The interview transcriptions were first studied as such to get an overview of the most apparent

overarching topics during the process of anonymizing and removing strong identifiers in the

content. Second, the transcriptions were analyzed by applying the grounded theory

methodology (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), meaning that the emerging theory derives and

evolves with the observations in the research data (Corbin and Strauss, 1998). Grounded

theory approach was selected for its benefits in facilitating the exploration of new theories and

developing new concepts from qualitative data (Corbin and Strauss, 1998) as well as its

popularity in qualitative research (Strauss and Corbin, 1997). Grounded theory is also fitting

in supporting the abductive elements of the research setting.

Open-coding (Corbin and Strauss, 1998) was applied to the transcriptions in an iterative

process of modifying and expanding: once a new identifiable theme arose in the interview, the

existing code set was either modified or expanded to cover all apparent themes. As a result,

an exhaustive code set was obtained. Furthermore, the inductive approach was selected over

selective coding to allow new unconsidered topics and phenomenon to emerge from the

research material inductively. After the coding process, the conclusive code set was

consolidated by eliminating irrelevant codes and merging related codes while mirroring the

observations against the research questions.

Last, the codes were categorized to higher-level themes, i.e., a version of Gioia methodology

(Gioia et al., 2013) was applied: first, first-order themes were labeled in the transcription data

with open coding, second, the labels were categorized by their relations with axial coding

(Corbin and Strauss, 1998) and, finally, aggregate dimensions were identified by grouping the

second-order themes to their fundamental antecedents. Furthermore, prior literature was

consulted in constructing the relations and assessing the validity and generalizability of the

preliminary findings. Respective to Eisenhardt (1989), the emergent model was iteratively

refined until only marginal incremental improvements were obtained. The selected methods

aimed to increase the rigor of this qualitative research (e.g., Gioia et al., 2013).

Assessing awareness and attitudes

The elements describing awareness and attitudes towards D&I topics were identified similarly

by analyzing the emergent themes in the interviews. All interviews were coded by their

features demonstrating either awareness or attitude. In the coding process, awareness was

defined as the understanding of the underlying dynamics and phenomena of diversity and

inclusion, whereas attitudes reflected interviewees’ motivation towards D&I and their idea of

its relevance. The decisive codes were then clustered into categories, each representing a

33

degree of maturity in awareness or attitudes. The aim was not to assess the effects of

awareness and attitudes on inclusive leadership but rather to introduce the specters of D&I

awareness and attitudes and break down their relevant characteristics.

Furthermore, the interviewees were asked to assess the D&I maturity of their organization,

supervisor (for employees)/self (for supervisors) and team (for supervisors)/self (for

employees) with the Inclusive Leadership Maturity Model by Inklusiiv (Appendix 1).

Regardless of the name, the model is a useful tool for self-reflection on understanding and

attitudes towards D&I topics on a framed scale. However, taken that the interviewees

interpreted inclusion and the presented model very differently, the framed reflection produces

only indicative insight into differences between the perceptions of the supervisors and

employees, rather than evaluating the supervisors’ inclusivity definitively.

On an important note, the maturity model (Appendix 1) was only used as means for self-

reflection in the interviews and not in analyzing the data, grouping the codes or creating the

conclusive model which emerged purely from the interview data itself.

34

4 Findings In this chapter, the research findings are presented, and the key emergent themes are

discussed in detail. First, the Characteristics and Mediators of Inclusive Leadership are

introduced. Second, the Mediators and Characteristics related to them are discussed one by

one. Last, the specters of D&I awareness and attitudes are presented and discussed building

on observations in the interview data.

The research findings compose of both explicit and implicit leadership attributes. On the one

hand, the explicit findings arose from the interviewees’ perceptions and experiences of

relevant leadership characteristics. On the other hand, the implicit findings emerged from the

interviewees’ description of critical organizational and cultural elements facilitating the sense

of inclusion. The interviewees also reported barriers to inclusion, which similarly aligned with

the descriptive themes. Recurring elements and themes across all these areas of the sense

of inclusion – leadership experiences, cultural and organizational elements, and barriers of

inclusion – were identified in the analysis process. The emergent findings constitute the

Characteristics of Inclusive Leadership. These characteristics further converge to aggregate

themes, the Mediators of Inclusive Leadership. The Characteristics and the underlying

Mediators of Inclusive Leadership are illustrated in Figure 4. The Characteristics of Inclusive

Leadership describe both the qualities of the leadership relation as well as favorable elements

of inclusive climate that leaders should foster. Furthermore, the Mediators of Inclusive

Leadership represent the fundamental underlying dynamics mediating the sense of inclusion

in individuals’ leadership experience. I believe that the presented mediators are not MESE

(mutually exclusive and simultaneously exhaustive), but rather, they are interrelated and

overlap in some of their aspects. The proposed model aims to present the first iteration of the

fundamental mediators of the sense of inclusion.

35

It was evident in the interviews that the sense of inclusion circles around individuality and that

people prefer different mixes of the characteristics. For example, it was apparent that the

interviewees fell into two roughly but distinctively different categories: people who perceived

their company as “just a job” – a place solely for professional and career development – and

people who valued the work community and culture above else. However, even with this rough

twofold categorization, people differed clearly in their leadership preferences. Thus, the

Characteristics and Mediators of Inclusive Leadership are not aspects that all interviewees

would necessarily share or highlighted as central factors in their experiences. Instead,

individuals have their own unique preferences and balancing. The Characteristics of Inclusive

Leadership and their grounding in the interviews is illustrated in Table 1. In addition, the

original Finnish quotes from the following sections are presented in Appendix 4.

Figure 4: The Characteristics and Mediators of Inclusive Leadership

36

Table 1: Grounding in interviews

4.1 Psychological safety

The most apparent implicitly emerging theme from the interviews was psychological safety

and the elements contributing to the feeling. Sense of psychological safety was constructed

in leadership relations through openness, trust, approachability, encouragement and support.

Similarly, the interviewees’ described aspects of openness, trust, and acceptance as

contributing elements in the organization culture.

Characteristic of Inclusive Leadership Grounding in interviews

Openness A1, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11 B5, B6, B9, B10

Trust A2, A4, A5, A6, A9, A8, A10, A11 B4, B5, B6, B9

Acceptance A11, A5, A6, A8 B9, B10

Approachability, support, and encouragement A4, A5, A6, A9, A8 B4, B5, B6, B8, B9, B10

Feeling of community A10, A5, A6, A2, A5, A6 B7, B8, B9, B10

Shared ambitions, professional identity, or values A10, A11, A4, A5, A6, A7, A9, A8 B4, B5, B7, B8, B9, B10

Understanding individuality A11, A4, A5, A6, A7, A9, A2 B2, B4, B6, B8, B9, B10

Commitment to D&I A11, A5, A6, A7, A8, A1

Proactiveness A11, A4, A5, A6, A8 B8, B4, B5, B6, B9, B10

Showing authentic interest A10, A11, A4, A5, A6, A7, A9, A8 B4, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10

Sense of relevance A4, A5, A6, A8 B4, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10

Equality A10, A11, A4, A5, A6, A8 B4, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10

Insider information A10, A11, A6, A6, A1, A2 B4, B7, B8, B9, B10

Being involved A11, A4, A5, A6, A9, A1, A2 B5, B7, B9

Informal interaction A10, A11, A5 B4, B5, B7, B8, B9, B10

Collegial relationships A10, A11, A5 B8, B9

37

Openness

Openness was best described in the quality of relationships with others through confidence to

share feelings, show negative emotions, be vulnerable, exchange feedback and discuss

professional ambitions. Ability to demonstrate openness in sharing emotions and showing

vulnerability were also mentioned as positive leadership characteristics. In contrast, a prior

negative personal experience of the leader or distrust in their competence to handle discrete

matters seemed to hinder openness. Furthermore, the feeling of not being able to share

experiences that others would not probably relate with or a belief that pushing D&I discussion

or pointing out exclusive behavior would shadow their career advancement seemed to relate

to openness negatively.

“[…] for example, when I’m describing what’s going on in my life et cetera I

feel that he likes to, for example when I say blah blah blah my girlfriend, he

prefers let’s say what’s her name. I feel like he cares what is the person.

Not just whatever. I don’t care what’s going on. I feel that he does this from

his side as well. He says the name of his wife, and this makes it much

more personal. It feels that I can actually trust this person. I wouldn’t have

any problem to share something in a different level with my supervisor […]”

– A6

“[…] we have reserved time for checking on how we’re doing. Even outside

projects, although our internal daily meetings surely involve work topics but

also sharing how we’re doing, for example, if something has happened at

home and so on. It’s like discussing with friends. And it feels liberating… to

open up at work about this stuff. That way others are aware of how you’re

feeling and it’s easier to work when you don’t have to hide behind

‘everything’s okay’.” – A5

In its essence, openness translates to individuals’ experience of safety and freedom of

expressing themselves freely in the community – not holding back.

Trust

Trust emerged in experiences of leaders providing their employees with autonomy and

avoiding authoritarian, “micro-management” behaviors. Interviewees further reported giving

38

and getting responsibility as well as others building confidence in their expertise as important

cultural elements for inclusion.

“[…] I also have a feeling that I have been trusted in and I’ve given a large

pair of shoes to fill and when I’ve reacted with ‘I can’t’ they’ve said, ‘Surely

you can, just pull the shoes on and you’ll see’. And it’s like that, I have

never had to convince the supervisors of my capabilities or competence

but, more like, they’ve had more faith in me than I have. And that’s a bid

thing.” – A10

In summary, trust is reflected in the individual’s experience of being believed in despite their

personal uncertainty or a risk of failing.

Acceptance

Acceptance of individuality and diversity emerged from experiences of being able to be one’s

true self and recognizably different. However, sharing a culturally embedded image of a

‘model’ employee or ‘model’ attributes and other issues with creating room for uniqueness

conflicted with the sense of acceptance. For example, the challenge of being an introvert and

not fitting to the ‘model’ employee image arose in the interviews.

“I feel that I am [a Company A employee] for working here and being the

person I am. [laughs] I can’t describe it any better, maybe being [a

Company A employee] includes being a unique person in a way, with your

own interests and skills and so on.” – A5

Approachability, support, and encouragement

Interviewees also indicated leaders’ approachability as a favorable characteristic.

Approachability arose from a collegial and friendly take on the leader-member relation and,

importantly, contributes to openness, as discussed above. Furthermore, support and

encouragement through appraisal, mentoring and consulting were brought up, which, in turn,

also contribute partially to the experience of trust.

39

4.2 Humane Respect

Communicating humane respect and appreciation towards individuals and making them feel

valued and genuinely integral members of the community contributed to the sense of inclusion.

The leader’s ability to demonstrate such respect manifested in proactiveness, availability, and

sincere interest in the leader-member relation. Similarly, appreciation and a sense of influence

in the organization culture emerged in the interview data.

Proactiveness

Leaders demonstrated respect towards their employees by showing proactivity in getting to

know the employees, understanding their ambitions, taking action in and advocating their

initiatives, and enabling their work. In contrast, reactive leadership was perceived as distant

and negative.

“What comes to professional growth and development, proactivity is

something that I’ve liked to see – that supervisors bring up whether I’d be

interested in this and that or that they noticed that some training is coming

and maybe I’d like to participate in it and so on.” – A8

Essentially, the leader’s proactivity in the leader–employee relation creates a feeling of being

genuinely worth the leader’s attention, efforts, and interest, thereby facilitating employees’

feeling of being valued.

Showing authentic interest

Leader’s authentic interest came across in the ability to listen responsively, demonstrate

genuine caring and support in finding individuals’ own path. The same elements were also

underlined as elements of inclusive organization culture: caring, helping and responsiveness.

Similar to proactiveness, demonstrating availability communicated genuine concern in the

employees’ matters via being worth of the leader’s time and interest. Availability was further

best exhibited with prompt responses to and managing to arrange time for the employees’

concerns.

“With [my supervisor], I’ve never had the feeling that we’re talking about

how much money I’m bringing to the company or how we could make

40

money more efficiently. Instead, the focus has always been on me as a

person and how I am doing and what I’m aiming for and so on.” – A5

These characteristics communicate respect by demonstrating interest in individuals’ ambitions

and sharing their concerns.

Sense of relevance

Sense of relevance is composed of appreciation from others and a sense of influence. On the

one hand, appreciation arose in collegial trust and respect in each other’s expertise as well as

utilization of that expertise for the team’s favor. In addition, appreciation communicates respect

towards the skillset and the value that the individual brings to the group. On the other hand, a

sense of influence was experienced through being able to voice up in the organization and the

team, comment on organizational topics and affect personal projects and ways of working.

“[…] and also, that they listen and that they value what the other person is

saying, appreciates the other as an expert. And it’s part of the listening that

what you’re saying is important. You know what you’re talking about.” – B6

The related two sensations communicate humane respect in that every individual’s opinion

and expertise are worth hearing and incorporating into the organizational processes.

4.3 Shared Identity

Some idea of “us” was often evident in the interviews even though the framing and context

differed. Feeling of community and shared ambitions, values or professional identity

contributed to the experience of belonging to a group entity and being a part of something

and, thereby, the sense of inclusion. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, interviewees

differed in their preferences and interests in inclusion. Therefore, the shared identity also

depended on what they looked for from a company. The leader’s role in facilitating an

experience of shared identity focused on areas such as setting and communicating group

goals and supporting teaming and cohesion.

In the process of forming an idea of “me” and “us”, the meaning-making process of individuals’

positioning in relation to others contributed to the sense of belonging: one interviewee

underlined that they felt like an outsider in their team until their mentor helped them see how

41

their uniqueness was a strength in the team, how they should position in relation to others and

how being different should not be a matter of trying to fit in.

“[…] for a long time, I felt that I hadn’t found my place in [our competence]

community and I felt that I came along much better with the people from

[business competence], I felt that I found more soulmates there. But with

the help of my mentor, I realized my strengths [in my competence] and

why it’s good that I don’t have the same profile with my [direct colleagues].”

– A10

Feeling of community

Perception of a community contributed to the experience of belonging and creating a group

identity, for example, through a small team size, the current work group, the local office, or a

communal organization culture.

“[…] you had to get to know somebody entirely different, people from here

and there. Which is, in my opinion, really fun and, on the other hand,

creates the feeling that ‘okay, we’re something, a unit. We’re a group.’” –

B7

Identity issues emerged when employees felt disconnected from the organization due to large

team size, organization structure or size, or feeling otherwise distant from colleagues or other

teams. Some interviewees even identified more to their client team rather than their employing

organization, which is believably a relevant phenomenon in the consulting business.

“Well, actually, it isn’t highlighted too much, [the company B], in our

organization, and then probably the reason why somebody doesn’t feel like

belonging is that the supervisors are the sole connection. It might be that

you’re working in a project with nobody else from [company B] […], and the

supervisor is the sole connection, and the supervisors have an awful

number of subordinates. They don’t personally know their team, which has

received a lot of feedback from people for not feeling like belonging and

why they don’t feel like belonging when they don’t know their friends.” – B9

42

Shared ambitions, professional identity, or values

In addition to the contextual framing of the identity group – the idea of “us” – common aspects

in personal identity with others contributed to belongingness and forming a shared identity.

Bonding elements might be, for example a shared professional identity or competence (for

example, developer), ambitions (for example, project goals) or a value-base (for example,

strong organization values).

“We hire people that already share our values and that way the people are

already of certain sort […], I’ve begun to understand how important those

values really are and that they’re not only signs on the wall but rather

something that everybody embraces when they come working at us.” –

A11

4.4 Atmosphere of Uniqueness

The atmosphere of uniqueness emerged in some of the interviews from positive experiences

of leaders’ ability to accommodate and understand individuality, show commitment and

understanding in D&I and facilitate employees’ feeling of uniqueness. The same elements

were also reflected in the inclusive cultural elements. In addition to the below-presented

dimensions, the interviewees identified barriers in the organization’s ability to facilitate

diversity: recognizing that not all kinds of people would fit in, lack of diversity in the company

damaging inclusion, and homogeneity creating pressure in the organization.

“And unfortunately, when you notice that ‘there’s an inspiring leader and

they work differently from others’, it takes only a while before they leave.

They leave for companies that permit being different and are open to

change. We’ve joked about everybody at [company B] having the same

pinstripe suit.” – B9

Understanding individuality

Understanding of individuality was reflected in experiences of acknowledging individuals’

differing needs – such as multilingualism at the workplace and providing work-life balance

mechanism for different stages of life – and regarding different viewpoints even when the

leader disagreed with them. In contrast, feeling like an outsider for not being understood on a

43

very personal topic or perceiving that the organization is incapable of supporting some stages

of life that others do not relate with were some of the significant barriers to inclusion.

“[…] and when a need arises or somebody announces that they disagree

with the discussion or that a group that they identify with has different

needs from other groups and the others don’t see that same need or

they’re laughing that ‘oh well, it can’t be that important’. Those moments

remind me that there are issues […] And whether I feel like belonging or

not belonging, it changes from daily, monthly and from discussion to

another.” – A7

Understanding individual needs and where different people come from is essential in creating

a supportive atmosphere for accommodating differences.

Commitment to D&I

A strong message of diversity and equality was perceived as an important cultural element

that communicates commitment to accommodating individuality and acknowledging minorities

in the community. Although there were some positive experiences of demonstrating a

commitment to D&I, this aspect was highlighted even more in the negative experiences:

discussing D&I is avoided, apparent inequalities are grounded with poor arguments, leaders

are not proactive around D&I, and the organization is unable to translate D&I vision into

practice.

“I’d guess that perhaps partly because we have a D&I-team, the

supervisors might, in a way, outsource their activeness to the team – either

purposively or because it’s easier not to think about D&I. But having a very

active attitude, I don’t see much” – A8

“Another thing that on the onboard sessions they had some inclusion

diversity meeting just to dedicate. Totally dedicated for it and just to show

that the culture of the company is pretty much about it. That should not

have any judgment or any discrimination. […] Everyone is here to work,

and we respect and we like each other.” – A6

44

Commitment to D&I contributes to an atmosphere of uniqueness in that D&I is taken seriously

and incorporated into the culture and attitudes of the people.

4.5 Relationality

Although the leaders’ role in facilitating the sense of relationality was not explicitly reported in

the interviews, it was apparent that for many, the sensation of inclusion emerged from social

elements in the workplace – interaction, relationships, and friendships with other people.

Above all, informal interaction and relationships with others facilitated a feeling of

belongingness. In contrast, one interviewee noted that having their leader as the only

connection to the organization damaged their experience of belongingness.

Informal interaction

Many interviewees highlighted informal interaction as one of the vital elements in creating a

sense of belongingness in the workplace – particularly to balance out the formal interaction

and work dominated substance discussion. Some further underlined that a purely formal

relationship with their colleagues was disadvantageous. Also, spontaneous interaction and

facetime were added as contributing factors.

“It’s definitely that we include other things outside work, talk about other

than work topics, and that you get to know the people and not only their

work. It’s a big thing.” – A11

Some interviewees also reported getting to know new people as an equally relevant dynamic:

making new acquaintances, demonstrating humane relationality at the workplace, and

expanding personal networks. Having networks inside the organization contributed to the

feeling of being an insider in the community. Similarly, informal company events were found

positive in facilitating networking. Importantly, informal interaction is a mediator of authentic

interest in colleagues, demonstrating that collegial relationships have relational humane value.

Collegial relationships

Many interviews reported that the quality of their relationship with their colleagues contributed

to their sense of belongingness: positive experiences of encounters, friendly colleagues, and

friendly social culture. Particularly, genuine friendships with colleagues amplified a sense of

belonging.

45

“Something that distinguishes [company A] from other employers is that I

have fun at work and outside work with the same people.” – A10

I propose that positive collegial relationships also contribute to the experience of psychological

safety and encourage interaction.

4.6 Feeling of being an insider

The perception of being included in the inside circle of the social group seemed to mediate

the sense of belongingness. Perception of equality, access to insider information, and

involvement in processes were highlighted as core factors of an insider feeling. The

importance of feeling like an insider was further contrasted in experiences of feeling like an

outsider particularly.

Equality

Feeling equal to other team members – having the same position, access, and capabilities to

operate in the team – despite any apparent or covert differences was underlined in the

interviewees’ experiences. Out of various factors, low hierarchy and a general sense of

organizational equality were the most apparent contributors to the sense of being an equal

insider. However, some interviewees also reported negative experiences of equality and

recognized inequal structures in the organization. Experiencing or identifying inequality

seemed to mediate the feeling of being an outsider. One prominent theme was the feeling of

being a representative of a diversity ‘quota’. Similarly, the perception of a leader favoring some

team members over others contributed to the feeling of being an outsider.

“The cons I guess that right away that I don’t see many people that look

like me there. Of course, that will come to your mind I’m here just to

represent this class or represent these people. That comes many thoughts

on it. Am I here because I’m good enough for this company or am I here

because they need people like me to represent?” – A6

Insider information

Having access to information that was somehow considered as insider information contributed

to the feeling of being an insider. Importantly, organizational transparency, transparent

46

leadership and networks in the organization facilitated access to such information. In a similar

fashion, insider humour, slang and shared memories had a comparable role in creating the

feeling of being an insider. From the opposite perspective, the experience of being an outsider

arose from a lack of visibility to internal decision-making or processes, such as the career

advancement process, and not knowing the insider slang or humour.

“You could say that once I left the manager position, I became an outsider

again. I see how little of the relevant information and argumentation is

communicated to the grassroots level. I’m pretty much an outsider.” – B9

“[…] it might also have been that the internal humour in the meeting was

something I didn’t understand then. When I sat down in the meeting room,

I was like ‘what’s happening here’, and afterwards I’ve realized that there

was a lot of jokes that I didn’t understand at the time and that I now do, but

at first I was an outsider and didn’t get the humour.” – A10

Being involved

Most interviewees felt that they could participate in organizational decision-making,

processes, and other activities. However, the role of being involved was most apparent in

experiences of not being able to participate. For example, interviewees reported negative

experiences of top-down decision-making, not being able to comment on decision-making and

identifying an inner management circle. One interviewee also perceived themself as an

outsider for working only on customer projects and not internal processes.

“I’m pretty much, if not an outsider, then at least at the outer rims. After

all… I have fairly little feeling that ‘okay I could actually influence these

things’ and, it’s feels more like that they come from above and that some

people somewhere have decided something […]” – B7

4.7 Attitudes and Awareness

The findings from the awareness and attitudes analysis described in Section 3.3 are presented

in Table 2 and Table 3. Most often, the interviewees did not indicate the maturity of exclusively

one level, but instead, elements from across the specter.

47

Level Little Understanding Basic understanding Critical understanding Self-aware understanding

Elements Has not considered D&I in their work but has confidence in D&I maturity

Doesn’t recognize diversity or minorities

Recognizes observable and non-observable diversity

Recognizes lack of diversity, unbalanced representation, dominant demography or homogeneity

Aware of organizational D&I goals and efforts

Recognizes existence of inequality

Shows critical thinking towards organization, leadership, and team efforts towards D&I

Recognizes diversity of perception

Recognizes limits in own understanding

Recognizes the diverse ways and pitfalls in that inequality may manifest

Recognizes intersectional diversity

Recognizes own privileges and that can’t relate to everything

Recognizes biases and their effect

Table 2: The specter of D&I awareness

Level Naïve Passive Compliant Proactive

Elements Doesn’t regard D&I as relevant for self or the organization

Thinks that D&I is inherently apparent in own behavior

Doesn’t see much to learn about D&I topics

Considers organizational processes as already objective

Thinks that lack of diversity is an industry issue

Thinks that D&I requires proactive organizational efforts and education

Argues that inclusion should be incorporated into all organizational activities

Considers diversity as a positive thing

Brings up D&I topics and assess their role in my work

Advocates D&I topics in the organization

Educates themself about D&I

Fictive example

quote

“I haven’t considered D&I because it’s not relevant

for our team.”

“I think our processes are objective, and I believe everybody thinks D&I

is important.”

“Inclusion requires work and should show in everything that we

do holistically.”

“I do my bit in improving an inclusive climate and

address issues with inequality.”

Table 3: The specter of D&I attitudes (with fictive descriptive example quotes)

The interviewees interpreted the terms ‘inclusion’, ‘diversity’ and ‘D&I’ varyingly and, thus,

indicated inherently different levels of awareness and attitudes. Little awareness showed in

vague answers, poor concreteness, and contradictions in reasoning. In contrast, critical

awareness showed in everyday examples of D&I and multifaceted reflection of the state of

both inclusion and exclusion.

Homogeneous team composition was the most common reason for leaders not to consider

D&I topics as relevant. Ironically, some employees reported having no role models and not

seeing people like them in the work community as essential contributors to feeling like an

outsider. Another reason for leaders’ passive attitude was the perception that nobody in the

team had trouble in D&I related topics. To some extent, some also considered D&I topics as

a sort of tick-box skill that you either know or don’t know as opposed to being seen as a topic

48

for continuous development and learning comparably to other work skills. Similarly, lack of

time, understanding, and support were some reported barriers to contributing to D&I.

Overall, people seemed to have an image of the team’s collective awareness, attitudes, and

inclusivity even though the D&I topics were never necessarily discussed collectively. The

findings showed varying awareness and attitude for both the supervisors and employees

inside the same teams.

“[…] even this interview has opened my eyes to whether these topics are

something that I could proactively bring up. And that many people might

have… that I might have a somewhat gloomy illusion that everything is

fine.” – A2

Some supervisors were also confident in their objectiveness in decision-making, and that

inclusivity is inherently apparent and naturally ingrained in their personality, while they also

admitted never having reflected on D&I topics in their leadership.

“Well, in my work, [the organizational diversity goals] have no impact since,

as I mentioned earlier, I don’t think about these things. If I’m interviewing a

competent person, I’ll hire them – whatever their background is. I’ve never

even thought about these things.” – B3

Similarly, some supervisors confidently ranked themselves as proactive learners or allies on

the Inclusive Leadership Maturity Model (Appendix 1) but failed to articulate how they actually

studied D&I or educated others on the topics. Leaders who failed to articulate their high

ranking also showed a more passive attitude towards self-development around D&I, while

supervisors who recognized their lack of awareness and skill indicated more proactive efforts.

Although outside the scope of this study, this notion implies that the degree of awareness

might correlate with attitude to some extent. Moreover, supervisors who demonstrated critical

awareness were more conscious of how exclusion might manifest in both their behavior and

organizational processes, and, thereby, seemed more capable of addressing the harmful

elements. Investigating the role of awareness and attitudes and their inter-correlation are left

for future research.

Interestingly, differences in the cross-evaluation of leaders’ D&I maturity highlighted the

disparity of perception: leaders ranked themselves higher than their employees ranked the

49

supervisors on the Inclusive Leadership Maturity Model (Appendix 1) – regardless of the

supervisors’ awareness and attitudes. The indicative results from the ranking suggest that

either supervisors have a somewhat overconfident image of themselves, or their employees

are more critical or not so aware of D&I topics. On an important note, the self-assessment is

subject to the interpretation of the terminology, its meaning, and essentially social pressure to

demonstrate maturity and compliance in D&I, as discussed in Section 5.3.

50

5 Discussion In this chapter, the research findings are reflected against those of prior studies, and the

theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed. Last, the limitations of the

study are examined, and topics for future research are proposed.

5.1 Theoretical implications

The findings of this study are in line with prior research. Similar to the existing literature, it was

evident in the findings that leaders require both relational leadership skills in direct

relationships with their employees (see also, Cottrill et al., 2014) as well as abilities to facilitate

a climate of inclusion (see also, Wasserman et al., 2008) to indirectly promote their employees’

inclusion. The connections between the proposed Characteristics of Inclusive Leadership and

prior research are presented in Table 4. As can be noted from Table 4, this study essentially

supports many of the behaviors and characteristics of inclusive leadership that Randel et al.

(2018) recently conceptualized in their review of the existing body of literature. In addition, this

study also suggests novel characteristics of inclusive leadership and organizational culture –

namely proactiveness, facilitating informal interaction, and shared ambitions, goals, or values.

Although somewhat present, it seemed that the aspects of the traditional definition of inclusion

by Mor-Barak and Cherin (1998) were not as apparently relevant as other elements in the

interviewees’ experiences. On an important note, these aspects of inclusion were explicitly

addressed in the interview guides and, thus, their occurrence in the results was inherent. As

discussed in Section 2.3.1, the aspects presented by Mor-Barak and Cherin (1998) are rather

processes for fostering inclusion than actually the antecedent psychological dynamics. For the

same reason, this study relied on the definition by Shore et al. (2011), i.e., inclusion through

belongingness and uniqueness. Consequently, any practices, processes, elements, and

relationships facilitating the sense of belongingness and uniqueness contribute to the sense

of inclusion and, therefore, it makes sense that interviewees underlined numerous contributors

to their experience outside the traditional approach to inclusion. Furthermore, the dimensions

by Mor-Barak and Cherin (1998) might be somewhat outdated in the modern organizational

culture. Possibly, collective decision-making and equal access to resources are so well

ingrained in organizations today that their relevance in facilitating inclusion goes unnoticed.

Nevertheless, I suggest that, in fact, the underlying feeling of relevance, influence (e.g.,

empowerment as discussed in literature by Randel et al. (2018)), and autonomy are the

antecedents in the traditional aspects of inclusion that breed a sense of belongingness and,

consequently, inclusion.

51

Table 4: Connections to existing literature

Notably, as for the existing literature, the presented leadership characteristics are abundant

in this study. This is likely because individuals have their own unique preferences regarding

leadership styles and personal needs and, thus, all characteristics of inclusive leadership may

not be relevant for everyone and, instead, the appropriate qualities of an inclusive leadership

relationship must be developed individually. Sadly, there is no silver bullet to inclusive

leadership.

The Characteristics of Inclusive Leadership further converged to six more fundamental higher-

level dynamics to the so-called Mediators of Inclusive Leadership (Figure 4): psychological

safety, humane respect, shared identity, an atmosphere of uniqueness, relationality, and

feeling of being an insider. The concept of belongingness (Shore et al., 2011) is most present

in all of the mediators: the mediators communicate being truly and whole-heartedly a valued

Characteristic of Inclusive Leadership Connection to existing literature

Openness Carmeli et al., 2010; Javed et al., 2019; Randel et al., 2018; Avolio and Gardner, 2005 (relational transparency)

Trust Booysen, 2014; Pless and Maak, 2004

Acceptance Shore et al., 2011; Jansen et al., 2014; Randel et al., 2018

Approachability, support, and encouragement Randel et al., 2018; Mor Barak and Cherin, 1998; Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006

Feeling of community Mor Barak, 1999 (connectedness); Randel et al., 2018

Shared ambitions, professional identity, or values (Novel finding)

Understanding individuality Winters, 2014; Wasserman, 2014

Commitment to D&I Randel et al., 2016; Winters, 2014; Roberson, 2006

Proactiveness (Novel finding)

Showing authentic interest Carmeli et al., 2010; Javed et al., 2019

Sense of relevance Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006 (appreciation); Sabharwal, 2014 (valuation); Randel et al., 2018 (empowerment)

Equality Booysen, 2014; Sabharwal, 2014; Shore et al., 2011; Randel et al., 2018

Insider information Mor Barak and Cherin, 1998; Pelled et al., 1999; Huong et al., 2016

Being involved Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006; Nishii, 2013; Roberson, 2006; Randel et al., 2018 (shared decision-making)

Informal interaction (Novel finding)

Collegial relationships Mitchell et al., 2015

52

part of the social system. Moreover, Hope Pelled et al. (1999) also underline being treated like

an insider in their definition of inclusion (see also, Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998). Shore et al.

(2011) underline uniqueness as a fundamental dimension of inclusion, and Hofhuis et al.

(2012) underline appreciating diversity – or ‘diversity climate’ as they call it – as the key to

collective identification with the organization which both are reflected in the atmosphere of

uniqueness mediator. Moreover, the research by Ely and Thomas (2001) resonated with the

findings: having a culturally embedded image of a model employee results in turnover and,

therefore, a diversity climate and a ‘integration-and-learning’ strategy are beneficial for

inclusion. The relevance of psychological safety is similarly underlined by Nembhard and

Edmondson (2006) and Carmeli et al. (2010). Similarly, the relational skills and authenticity

discussed in the existing AL literature (Cottrill et al., 2014) resonate with the humane respect

mediator. Regarding relationality, connectedness is reported to contribute to inclusion (Royal

Academy of Engineering, 2017) and is also incorporated in the definition of inclusion by Mor

Barak (1999). The mediating role of shared identity in inclusive leadership is also supported

by Mitchell et al. (2015) and Randel et al. (2018), who hypothesize work group identification

as a prominent predictor of diversity-to-performance. Overall, perception of similarity is shown

to have a connection with affiliation and attraction (Mannix and Neale, 2005). Shared identity

is fundamentally discussed in social psychology theories, such as social identity theory (Tajfel,

1982), suggesting that people’s identity is derived from being a part of a larger social group

and ODT (Brewer, 1991) underlining individuals’ need to belong and being accepted.

I further hypothesize that the Mediators of Inclusive Leadership describe the latent dynamics

behind the more explicit Characteristics of Inclusive Leadership and, therefore, provide ground

for exploring more relevant characteristics of inclusive leadership building on the same

mediators.

Novel findings

Although somewhat discussed, the proposed relationality and identity aspects of inclusion

seemed more central in the interviewees’ experiences than articulated in the existing literature.

Shared identity – having an idea of “us” – seems fundamental for a sense of belongingness:

what is the group that I relate to, identify to, and belong to. Particularly, what I did not find in

the existing literature, was essentially the variety of avenues for establishing a sense of shared

identity: strong organizational values, shared project ambitions and group goals, for example.

Shared identity also seems like a relevant outcome of trying to make sense of the complex

environment: who am I, who are we and who are them. Meaning-making is a believably related

phenomenon that is also discussed in leadership literature by Drath and Paulus (1994) and in

inclusive leadership literature by Wasserman (2005), who promotes relational eloquence – the

53

skill of participating in others’ meaning-making processes – as an important leadership skill.

The essence of relationality seems to be related to the same phenomenon: trying to make

sense of our relation to others in an ongoing sense-making process through interaction.

Overall, a large body of existing literature seems to vicariously posit that inclusion is created

by various external features that trigger individuals’ sense of inclusion when, in fact, it

appeared to me during the research that inclusion was rather co-created in the inter-subjective

relationality. Essentially, relationality is a fundament to belongingness since there is no place

to belong without other people.

Similarly, the role of proactiveness was not apparent in prior literature but arose centrally in

the interviews. I theorize that proactiveness is an overlooked latent dynamic in the prior

inclusive leadership studies that requires closer future examination. Nevertheless, I suggest

that the other characteristics of inclusive leadership depend on proactivity to some extent:

putting the time, effort, and inclusive elements in the individual leader–employee relations. In

turn, awareness and attitudes are in a decisive role in the leader’s proactiveness around D&I.

The role of awareness and attitudes is largely ignored in the current body of literature. The

differences in awareness and attitudes were evident in this study and, thus, I hypothesize that

they also play a somewhat decisive role in inclusive leadership. The specters of awareness

and attitudes share some elements with the Continuum of Factors Inhibiting Male Ally

Participation by DuBow and Ashcraft (2016): apathy, lack of awareness, perceiving D&I issue

as too large, and lack of time and support appeared in the interview findings as well. However,

this study proposes a more fine-grained depiction of the different degrees of awareness and

attitudes.

The findings are fundamentally aligned with the Dunning–Kruger effect (Kruger and Dunning,

1999): people who recognized their flaws and shortcomings in D&I and demonstrated critical

self-assessment showed the highest awareness, whereas people who were confident in their

inclusivity without really having reflected on the topic showed more limited awareness. The

importance of critical and self-aware awareness is also discussed in prior literature: Winters

(2014) and Booysen (2014) highlight self-reflective awareness, Randel et al. (2018) underline

reflection on decision-making, and Wasserman et al. (2008) emphasize self-awareness as an

important leadership skill. Winters (2014) also argues that “inclusion will not be sustained by

leaders who respond to diversity and inclusion initiatives as ‘check the box’ exercises” (p. 222).

Differing levels of awareness and attitudes in teams essentially create a disparity in the

perceptions of the state of inclusion and, potentially, a gloomy illusion of group inclusivity. As

a result, leaders’ sensitivity to changes in group dynamics – as underlined by Booysen (2014)

54

– and attentiveness to the different interpretations of the group reality – as emphasized by

Wasserman et al. (2008) – may suffer.

Basing on the study findings and prior literature, I hypothesize that awareness and attitudes

moderate leaders’ ability to accommodate both existing and new kinds of diversity. From this

perspective, organizational inclusion is not entirely a matter of leaders’ characteristics or skills

but also their ability to recognize and avert elements of exclusive leadership.

Last, it was evident in the interviews that the experiences of inclusion and exclusion were not

as bi-polarized as rhetorically discussed in existing literature: most interviewees reported

some elements of both inclusion and exclusion, and their experience of organizational

inclusion was more a matter of pros outweighing cons. This notion implies that, instead of

being an overwhelming experience, exclusion is experienced locally through only some aspect

of the organization. For example, some interviews who perceived being very included in their

work group felt that they were outsiders in larger organizational processes. This suggestion is

further aligned with prior literature in that organizational inclusion is a holistic phenomenon

requiring efforts at all organizational levels and in all processes.

Meeting the research objective

With convincing support from existing literature, this study succeeds in meeting the research

objective and contributes with a detailed empirical characterization of inclusive leadership. In

addition, the proposed Characteristics and Mediators of Inclusive Leadership (Figure 4)

connect some theories and propositions from prior studies to create a more holistic view of

inclusive leadership. Furthermore, the novel specters of awareness (Table 2) and attitudes

(Table 3) present the variety of ways in which individuals’ differing takes on D&I topics

manifest. Although this research did not examine the role of awareness and attitudes in

inclusive leadership, this study contributes to inclusive leadership research with an indicative

scale of the gradual maturities. Thus, this study succeeds in meeting both of the research

questions.

The study further contributes to inclusive leadership theory with a dual approach, combining

elements of entity-based and relational leadership theories. On the one hand, from the

functionalist, entity-based leadership perspective, the proposed Characteristics of Inclusive

Leadership successfully describe the favorable attributes, qualities, and skills of inclusive

leaders. On the other hand, from the relational leadership perspective, the Mediators of

Inclusive Leadership provide a glance at the realities developed in the leader-member

relationships. However, it is worth noting that given the research limitations (Section 5.2), the

55

proposed elemental mediators likely vary by context and are not possibly the only mediators

either.

5.2 Practical implications

Building on the study findings and existing literature (synthesized in Figure 4), I propose the

following synthesis of inclusive leadership (grouped by the mediators):

• Openness, trust, approachability, and support in leadership relation while

communicating acceptance to individuals and the group

• Creating a communal feeling of “us” and framing shared goals, ambitions, or values

• Understanding individuality and uniqueness and celebrating diversity, and committing

to inclusion

• Demonstrating proactiveness, authentic interest and availability in the leadership

relation and communicating a sense of relevance for employees through employee

empowerment and appreciation

• Equality and fairness in treatment and sharing information and involving people in

decision-making

• Facilitating informal interaction and authentic relations between colleagues

Although the most straightforward implications for leaders are developing and exercising the

above-presented qualities, understanding the underlying mediators of inclusive leadership is

equally important. The mediators describe the fundamental qualities of the leader–employee

relationship and the surrounding climate of inclusion. Developing both fronts together fosters

a sense of organizational inclusion.

On an interesting notion, the emergent characteristics of inclusive leadership could also be

considered as simply ‘good’ leadership as they not only mediate inclusion but contribute to a

healthy work environment. Thus, it can be suggested that inclusivity per se is good leadership

practice and pursuable regardless of the D&I aspect.

Evidently, inclusive leadership requires relational skills and investment in relationships with

employees. In sharp contrast, the supervisors’ reported that they had only limited time for

leadership and that some of their teams were even tens of people. Two relevant characteristics

of inclusive leadership – availability and authentic interest – contradict with the limited time.

Therefore, inclusive leadership also requires time management and structural organization

support to make time for relational leadership development. In addition, one of the interviewed

D&I experts commented that it is typical for the Finnish organization culture to promote people

56

to leadership positions based on their merits in substance work. From the perspective of

inclusive and relational leadership, leaders must be motivated to devote time to and focus on

leadership instead of prioritizing substance work. Thus, organizations should consider

people’s interest in exercising leadership in appointing manager positions.

Furthermore, Acker (2006) suggests that people make presumptions of their colleagues

actively. Thus, if unconscious biases are considered as the unavoidable results of humane

sense-making, the concept of inclusive leadership becomes a question of recognizing and

eliminating exclusive leadership. As presented in the findings, the more aware leaders

demonstrated better self-awareness of how exclusivity manifests in their behavior and seemed

thereby more apt in eliminating harmful behaviors. Thus, I underline the importance of self-

awareness.

In addition, both the leaders and employees often seemed to have an optimistic image of

inclusivity and everybody “fitting in” even though the topics were never discussed within the

team. The indicative similarity with the Dunning–Kruger effect (Kruger and Dunning, 1999)

further suggests that people have an overconfident image of their awareness. Although the

factual inclusivity in the studied teams cannot be commented on, critical self-reflectivity on

whether inclusion is truly exercised and whether there is really room for diversity should

contribute to a more profound understanding of how people feel like being themselves and

belonging to the group. Thus, I underline the importance of critical thinking.

Last, since diversity is not only limited to observable elements, a team might be more diverse

than the leaders perceive. As also suggested by Pelled et al. (1999), being different in a

dominant demographic is hard, and, consequently, supervisors of homogeneous teams

should also have all the more reason to question inclusivity and consider D&I in the team

proactively. Thus, I underline the importance of a proactive attitude as opposed to a reactive

one.

5.3 Limitations

This study is subject to limitations from both the employed methodology and the quality of the

research findings, which are discussed next.

The two-company setting poses a question of credibility due to the framed sampling (Dubois

and Gadde, 2002). The study was limited to the selected, voluntary interviewees in terms of

both representativeness of their company and diversity in general. Some people also refused

to partake in the research. In addition, the data collection was limited by the fixed time frame

57

of the research project. The credibility of research results is further subject to the researcher’s

bias itself, and a key challenge in studying only relatively few companies is avoiding attaining

biases from the interviews (Gioia et al., 2013). Moreover, Gioia et al. (2013) argue that

engaging with the existing literature early on might create confirmation bias in the data

collection and analysis phase by unconsciously looking for connections to the existing

literature. Confirmation bias is effectually present in this study since I familiarized myself with

a lot of literature while designing the research. However, the preliminary work was essential

in grasping understanding over the previously unfamiliar topic. Nevertheless, I made devoted

efforts to pay attention to my biases and avoid premature interpretations in the data collection

and analysis phases, as suggested by Gioia et al. (2013).

Another critical issue with a limited sample is the transferability of the research results (Gioia

et al., 2013). Considering that people from two different companies were studied, the

transferability of the findings is slightly better as opposed to a strictly framed single-case study.

Similarly, connections to existing literature suggest better generalizability (Eisenhardt, 1989).

However, the interviewees were mainly Finnish males and overall, relatively consistent in their

job satisfaction and experience of inclusion which limit the generalizability of the results. To

get a broader perspective of employee experiences, the study should have incorporated more

representatives of marginalized groups and also people with negative experiences of

exclusion. In this study, only one interviewee reported identifying clearly as an outsider and

feeling detached from the organization, implying arguable monotony in the sense of inclusion

across the interview sample. Notably, the sampling was limited to the available and willing

people in the companies, whose experiences could not have been predicted. Furthermore,

people who have experienced exclusion in the studied organizations have likely already

changed company. Thus, the research cannot provide enough understanding of the feelings

of exclusion and their relation to leadership. Altogether, taken the above-described limited

sample dimensions and the framed industry scope, the transferability is admittedly limited and

debatable. Nevertheless, this study focused on individual rather than demographic

experiences of inclusion and, therefore, provides rather inductive insight into the theoretical

elements of inclusive leadership and ideas for future research instead of definitive findings.

Using interviews as means of collecting research data pose further limitations and pitfalls. Yin

(1994) underlines the potential for bias from poor question formulation, response formulation,

skew in recollection, and interviewees responding with what they think is the “correct answer”.

All the suggested biases are relevant in this study due to the ambiguity of inclusion

experiences. The last notion is particularly significant in the context of this study since people

are generally afraid of being labeled as discriminative for showing a lack of knowledge or

58

compliance in D&I topics. The biases were addressed to the best of my abilities in structuring

and formulating the interview guides and creating a safe and open interview atmosphere.

Nevertheless, the biases are likely present in the data to some extent. In addition, a perfect

understanding of the interviewees’ perceptions is never obtained in the limited interview time

since inclusion is an infinitely complex, individualistic psychological experience.

Another relevant research issue is construct validity. Eisenhardt (1989) outlines construct

validity as the distinction of the selected construct from other constructs. Due to the

phenomenological nature of the study, interviewees’ responses are entirely subject to their

interpretation of the presented questions as well as their realities and meaning. Nevertheless,

the interviews were carefully analyzed, and recurring elements were identified to build an

image of inter-related dynamics and to distinguish different constructs. However, as discussed

earlier, construct validity is never achieved in phenomenological research, and, similarly, the

constructs of inclusion are debated in current research. The phenomenological aspects and

hermeneutics of the study are discussed more in Section 3.1.

Regarding the limitations of the findings, the study is framed to describe the inclusive elements

and qualities of leadership relations and organizational climate. Hence, structural

organizational elements – such as organizational hierarchy, processes, and practices – are

outside the scope of this study. Furthermore, the study takes a largely entity-based

perspective to leadership, although acknowledging the ontology of relational leadership

studies. Consequently, the selected research approach is open for debate and, alternatively,

a fundamentally different ontological and epistemological view on both leadership and

inclusion could have been taken – either from a more procedural or a much more relational

perspective.

Furthermore, the results were also affected by the remote work setting due to the ongoing

global Covid-19 pandemic, which most notably contributed to people’s experience of

disconnection with their colleagues. Several people had been employed just before or during

the pandemic and, thereby, had only a little experience of face-to-face work.

5.4 Future research

The existing literature on inclusion includes only little quantitative research, and the existing

theories call for more scientific rigor. Similarly, the proposed Characteristics and Mediators of

Inclusive Leadership and their internal dynamics should be validated and investigated with

quantitative empirical research in future studies.

59

Furthermore, the role of awareness and attitudes is not covered in the current body of literature

and poses a prominent field for future research. As this study provides an overlook of the

specters of awareness and attitudes, their specific effects on inclusive leadership and the

proposed hypothesis of their role in accommodating diversity are interesting topics for further

examination. The wide specters of awareness and attitudes indicate that there are significant

differences in D&I maturity, which may imply that they have a decisive impact on the outcomes

of leadership inclusivity.

Also, it appeared to me during the interviews that inclusion is the result of a continuous

meaning-making process: an individuals’ efforts to make sense of their own identity in relation

to others (Drath and Paulus, 1994). Furthermore, the importance of shared identity and

relationality indicate the central role of the collective idea of “us”. Meaning-making is discussed

in the existing leadership literature (for example, Drath and Paulus, 1994) and only little in

inclusive leadership literature (for example, Wasserman, 2005), but having only a little ground

in this study, the role of meaning-making in inclusive leadership should be investigated in

further studies in more detail.

60

6 Conclusions This final chapter summarizes the key conclusions of the study: main findings and their

implications are highlighted.

This study examines how leaders facilitate inclusion and how differences in awareness and

attitudes towards D&I manifest. The objective was to describe how leaders succeed in creating

a sense of inclusion as well as to explore the differences in people’s awareness and attitudes

towards D&I topics.

The study explored the variety of experiences and perceptions of inclusive leadership through

21 interviews with supervisors and their employees in two Finnish ICT consultancy companies.

Based on the findings and convincing support from existing literature, the study articulates the

Characteristics of Inclusive Leadership (Figure 4, page 35) – each of which requires contextual

evaluation and development respective to the team and individual. The characteristics further

converge to the Mediators of Inclusive Leadership (Figure 4, page 35) that describe the

fundamental underlying dynamics mediating inclusion in leadership: psychological safety,

shared identity, an atmosphere of uniqueness, humane respect, feeling of being an insider

and relationality. Testing and validating the characteristics and mediators of inclusive

leadership is a topic for future research.

Furthermore, the specters of awareness and attitudes describing individuals’ different

perspectives on D&I are presented. Although the effects of awareness and attitudes are

outside the scope of this study, the proposed specters lay the ground for future research on

their role in the practice of organizational inclusion. Furthermore, the specters indicatively

highlight the importance of critical self-reflection and proactiveness in accommodating

diversity and developing inclusive leadership.

61

References Acker, J. (2006) ‘Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations’, Gender and Society,

20(4), pp. 441–464. doi: 10.1177/0891243206289499.

Ahuja, M. K. (2002) ‘Women in the information technology profession: a literature review, synthesis and

research agenda’, European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), pp. 20–34. doi:

10.1057/palgrave/ejis/3000417.

Alvesson, M. (2003) ‘Beyond Neopositivists, Romantics, and Localists: A Reflexive Approach to

Interviews in Organizational Research’, Academy of Management Review, 28(1), pp. 13–33. doi:

10.5465/amr.2003.8925191.

Alvesson, M. (2019) ‘Waiting for Godot: Eight major problems in the odd field of leadership studies’,

Leadership, 15(1), pp. 27–43. doi: 10.1177/1742715017736707.

Avolio, B. J. and Gardner, W. L. (2005) ‘Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive

forms of leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), pp. 315–338. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001.

Bairoh, S. (2007) Current Debates on Classifying Diversity Management: Review and a Proposal. v,

Meddelanden Working Papers. v. Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration.

Baumeister, R. F. and Leary, M. R. (1995) ‘The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments

as a fundamental human motivation.’, Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), pp. 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-

2909.117.3.497.

Bendick, M., Lou Egan, M. and Lanier, L. (2010) ‘The business case for diversity and the perverse

practice of matching employees to customers’, Personnel Review. Edited by W. A. Scroggins, 39(4),

pp. 468–486. doi: 10.1108/00483481011045425.

Boekhorst, J. A. (2015) ‘The Role of Authentic Leadership in Fostering Workplace Inclusion: A Social

Information Processing Perspective’, Human Resource Management, 54(2), pp. 241–264. doi:

10.1002/hrm.21669.

Booysen, L. (2014) ‘The Development of Inclusive Leadership Practice and Processes’, in Diversity at

Work: The Practice of Inclusion. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 296–329. doi:

10.1002/9781118764282.ch10.

Brewer, M. B. (1991) ‘The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time’, Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), pp. 475–482. doi: 10.1177/0146167291175001.

Brimhall, K. C. et al. (2017) ‘Increasing Workplace Inclusion: The Promise of Leader-Member

Exchange’, Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(3), pp. 222–

62

239. doi: 10.1080/23303131.2016.1251522.

Brimhall, K. C., Lizano, E. L. and Mor Barak, M. E. (2014) ‘The mediating role of inclusion: A longitudinal

study of the effects of leader–member exchange and diversity climate on job satisfaction and intention

to leave among child welfare workers’, Children and Youth Services Review, 40, pp. 79–88. doi:

10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.003.

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Ziv, E. (2010) ‘Inclusive Leadership and Employee Involvement in

Creative Tasks in the Workplace: The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety’, Creativity Research

Journal, 22(3), pp. 250–260. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2010.504654.

Chung, B. G. et al. (2020) ‘Work Group Inclusion: Test of a Scale and Model’, Group & Organization

Management, 45(1), pp. 75–102. doi: 10.1177/1059601119839858.

Church, A. H. et al. (2014) ‘Inclusive Organization Development’, in Diversity at Work: The Practice of

Inclusion. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 260–295. doi: 10.1002/9781118764282.ch9.

Clayton, K. L., von Hellens, L. A. and Nielsen, S. H. (2009) ‘Gender stereotypes prevail in ICT’, in

Proceedings of the special interest group on management information system’s 47th annual conference

on Computer personnel research - SIGMIS-CPR ’09. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 153.

doi: 10.1145/1542130.1542160.

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd edn. SAGE Publications.

Correll, J. and Park, B. (2005) ‘A Model of the Ingroup as a Social Resource’, Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 9(4), pp. 341–359. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0904_4.

Cottrill, K., Denise Lopez, P. and C. Hoffman, C. (2014) ‘How authentic leadership and inclusion benefit

organizations’, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. Edited by D. Johanna

Hofbauer and Dr Astrid Podsiadlowski, 33(3), pp. 275–292. doi: 10.1108/EDI-05-2012-0041.

Denison, D. R. (1996) ‘What is the Difference Between Organizational Culture and Organizational

Climate? A Native’s Point of View on a Decade of Paradigm Wars’, Academy of Management Review,

21(3), pp. 619–654. doi: 10.5465/amr.1996.9702100310.

Dennissen, M., Benschop, Y. and den Brink, M. (2019) ‘Diversity Networks: Networking for Equality?’,

British Journal of Management, 30(4), pp. 966–980. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12321.

Dietz, J. and Petersen, L.-E. (2006) ‘Diversity management’, in Björkman, I. and Stahl, G. (eds)

Handbook of research in international HR management. Edward Elgar Pub, pp. 223–243.

Drath, H. W. and Paulus, J. C. (1994) ‘Making Common Sense’, (156), p. 32.

63

Drath, W. H. et al. (2008) ‘Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of

leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), pp. 635–653. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.003.

Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2002) ‘Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research’,

Journal of Business Research, 55(7), pp. 553–560. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8.

DuBow, W. and Ashcraft, C. (2016) ‘Male Allies: Motivations and Barriers for Participating in Diversity

Initiatives in the Technology Workplace’, International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology,

8(2), pp. 160-180–180.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’, Academy of Management

Review, 14(4), pp. 532–550. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385.

Eisenhardt, K. M. and Graebner, M. E. (2007) ‘Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And

Challenges’, Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), pp. 25–32. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888.

Ely, R. J. and Thomas, D. A. (2001) ‘Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives

on Work Group Processes and Outcomes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), p. 229. doi:

10.2307/2667087.

Fairhurst, G. T. and Grant, D. (2010) ‘The Social Construction of Leadership: A Sailing Guide’,

Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), pp. 171–210. doi: 10.1177/0893318909359697.

Ferdman, B. M. et al. (2010) ‘Collective experience of inclusion, diversity, and performance in work

groups’, RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 11(3), pp. 6–26. doi: 10.1590/S1678-

69712010000300003.

Ferdman, B. M. and Roberts, L. M. (2014) ‘Creating Inclusion for Oneself: Knowing, Accepting, and

Expressing One’s Whole Self at Work’, in Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion. San Francisco:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 93–127. doi: 10.1002/9781118764282.ch3.

Gallegos, P. V. (2014) ‘The Work of Inclusive Leadership’, in Diversity at Work: The Practice of

Inclusion. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 177–202. doi: 10.1002/9781118764282.ch6.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G. and Hamilton, A. L. (2013) ‘Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research’,

Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), pp. 15–31. doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151.

Gioia, D. A. and Pitre, E. (1990) ‘Multiparadigm Perspectives on Theory Building’, Academy of

Management Review, 15(4), pp. 584–602. doi: 10.5465/amr.1990.4310758.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. 1st edn. Aldine Transaction.

Glass, J. (2004) ‘Blessing or Curse?’, Work and Occupations, 31(3), pp. 367–394. doi:

10.1177/0730888404266364.

64

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2001) ‘The Hidden Driver of Great Performance by Daniel

Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee’, Harvard Business Review, (August).

Graen, G. B. and Uhl-bien, M. (1995) ‘Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership : Development of

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX )’, Management Department Faculty Publications, 57(Lmx), p. 30.

Available at:

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=managementfacpub.

Greenhaus, J. H. and Beutell, N. J. (1985) ‘Sources of Conflict Between Work and Family Roles’,

Academy of Management Review, 10(1), pp. 76–88. doi: 10.5465/amr.1985.4277352.

Hammer, M. (2009) ‘Intercultural Development Inventory v.3 (IDI) ORGANIZATION INDIVIDUAL

PROFILE’. Available at: https://idiinventory.com/wp-content/themes/evolution/pdfs/Jose_-_Exemplar_-

_Profile_-_August_2012.pdf.

Harrison, D. A. and Sin, H.-P. (2006) ‘What is Diversity and How Should It Be Measured?’, in Handbook

of Workplace Diversity. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE

Publications Ltd, pp. 192–217. doi: 10.4135/9781848608092.n9.

Hays-Thomas, R. (2004) ‘WHY NOW ? THE CONTEMPORARY FOCUS ON MANAGING DIVERSITY’,

The psychology and management of workplace diversity, (October 2000), pp. 3–30.

Healy, G. et al. (2018) ‘In the steps of Joan Acker: A journey in researching inequality regimes and

intersectional inequalities’, Gender, Work & Organization, 26(12), pp. 1749–1762. doi:

10.1111/gwao.12252.

Heilman, M. E. (2012) ‘Gender stereotypes and workplace bias’, Research in Organizational Behavior,

32, pp. 113–135. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003.

Hofhuis, J., Van Der Zee, K. I. and Otten, S. (2012) ‘Social Identity Patterns in Culturally Diverse

Organizations: The Role of Diversity Climate1’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(4), pp. 964–

989. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00848.x.

Homan, A. C. and Greer, L. L. (2013) ‘Considering diversity: The positive effects of considerate

leadership in diverse teams’, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(1), pp. 105–125. doi:

10.1177/1368430212437798.

Huong, L., Zheng, C. and Fujimoto, Y. (2016) ‘Inclusion, organisational justice and employee well-

being’, International Journal of Manpower, 37(6), pp. 945–964. doi: 10.1108/IJM-12-2015-0212.

Ibarra, H. (1993) ‘Personal Networks of Women and Minorities in Management: A Conceptual

Framework’, Academy of Management Review, 18(1), pp. 56–87. doi: 10.5465/amr.1993.3997507.

Jansen, W. S. et al. (2014) ‘Inclusion: Conceptualization and measurement’, European Journal of Social

65

Psychology, 44(4), pp. 370–385. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2011.

Javed, B. et al. (2019) ‘Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of

psychological safety’, Journal of Management & Organization, 25(1), pp. 117–136. doi:

10.1017/jmo.2017.3.

Jones, K. P. et al. (2013) ‘Not So Subtle: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Correlates of Subtle and

Overt Discrimination’, Journal of Management, 42(6), pp. 1588–1613. doi:

10.1177/0149206313506466.

Kahn, W. A. (1990) ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT AND

DISENGAGEMENT AT WORK.’, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692–724. doi:

10.2307/256287.

Kochan, T. et al. (2003) ‘The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity

research network’, Human Resource Management, 42(1), pp. 3–21. doi: 10.1002/hrm.10061.

Kossek, E. E., Su, R. and Wu, L. (2017) ‘“Opting Out” or “Pushed Out”? Integrating Perspectives on

Women’s Career Equality for Gender Inclusion and Interventions’, Journal of Management, 43(1), pp.

228–254. doi: 10.1177/0149206316671582.

Kruger, J. and Dunning, D. (1999) ‘Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s

own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

77(6), pp. 1121–1134. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121.

Laine, T. (2010) ‘Miten kokemusta voidaan tutkia? Fenomenologinen näkökulma’.

Larkey, L. K. (1996) ‘Toward a Theory of Communicative Interactions in Culturally Diverse Workgroups’,

The Academy of Management Review, 21(2), p. 463. doi: 10.2307/258669.

Lee, L., Faulkner, W. and Alemany, C. (2010) ‘Turning Good Policies into Good Practice: Why is it so

Difficult?’, International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 2(1), pp. 89–99. Available at:

http://genderandset.open.ac.uk.

Mannix, E. and Neale, M. A. (2005) ‘What Differences Make a Difference?’, Psychological Science in

the Public Interest, 6(2), pp. 31–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x.

McGrath, J. E., Berdahl, J. L. and Arrow, H. (1995) ‘Traits, expectations, culture, and clout: The

dynamics of diversity in work groups.’, in Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing

workplace. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 17–45. doi: 10.1037/10189-001.

McIntosh, P. (2019) ‘White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See

Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies (1988) 1’, in On Privilege, Fraudulence, and

Teaching As Learning. Routledge, pp. 17–28. doi: 10.4324/9781351133791-3.

66

McKinsey & Company (2020) Diversity wins!

Miller, F. A. (1998) ‘Strategic Culture Change: The Door to Achieving High Performance and Inclusion’,

Public Personnel Management, 27(2), pp. 151–160. doi: 10.1177/009102609802700203.

Milliken, F. J. and Martins, L. L. (1996) ‘Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple

Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups’, Academy of Management Review, 21(2), pp. 402–433.

doi: 10.5465/amr.1996.9605060217.

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W. and Hewlin, P. F. (2003) ‘An Exploratory Study of Employee Silence:

Issues that Employees Don’t Communicate Upward and Why*’, Journal of Management Studies, 40(6),

pp. 1453–1476. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00387.

Mitchell, R. et al. (2015) ‘Managing Inclusiveness and Diversity in Teams: How Leader Inclusiveness

Affects Performance through Status and Team Identity’, Human Resource Management, 54(2), pp.

217–239. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21658.

Mor-Barak, M. E. and Cherin, D. A. (1998) ‘A Tool to Expand Organizational Understanding of

Workforce Diversity’, Administration in Social Work, 22(1), pp. 47–64. doi: 10.1300/J147v22n01_04.

Mor Barak, M. E. (1999) ‘Beyond Affirmative Action’, Administration in Social Work, 23(3–4), pp. 47–

68. doi: 10.1300/J147v23n03_04.

Mor Barak, M. E. (2000) ‘The Inclusive Workplace: An Ecosystems Approach to Diversity Management’,

Social Work, 45(4), pp. 339–353. doi: 10.1093/sw/45.4.339.

Mor Barak, M. E. (2014) Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace. 3rd edn.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mor Barak, M. E. and Daya, P. (2014) ‘Fostering Inclusion from the Inside Out to Create an Inclusive

Workplace’, in Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.

391–412. doi: 10.1002/9781118764282.ch13.

Myers, V. (2017) No Title. Available at: https://www.vernamyers.com/2017/02/04/diversity-doesnt-stick-

without-inclusion/ (Accessed: 23 March 2021).

Nembhard, I. M. and Edmondson, A. C. (2006) ‘Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and

professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams’, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27(7), pp. 941–966. doi: 10.1002/job.413.

Niemistö, C. et al. (2021) ‘Motherhood 2.0: Slow Progress for Career Women and Motherhood within

the “Finnish Dream”’, Work, Employment and Society, p. 095001702098739. doi:

10.1177/0950017020987392.

67

Nishii, L. H. (2013) ‘The Benefits of Climate for Inclusion for Gender-Diverse Groups’, Academy of

Management Journal, 56(6), pp. 1754–1774. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0823.

Nishii, L. H. and Mayer, D. M. (2009) ‘Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups?

The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship.’, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 94(6), pp. 1412–1426. doi: 10.1037/a0017190.

Nishii, L. H. and Rich, R. E. (2014) ‘Creating Inclusive Climates in Diverse Organizations’, in Diversity

at Work: The Practice of Inclusion. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 330–363. doi:

10.1002/9781118764282.ch11.

Nkomo, S. M. (2014) ‘Inclusion: Old Wine in New Bottles?’, in Diversity at Work: The Practice of

Inclusion. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 580–592. doi: 10.1002/9781118764282.ch22.

O’Donovan, D. (2017) ‘Inclusion: Diversity Management 2.0’, in Machado, C. and Davim, J. P. (eds)

Managing Organizational Diversity. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–28. doi:

10.1007/978-3-319-54925-5_1.

Pelled, L. H., Ledford, Jr, G. E. and Albers Mohrman, S. (1999) ‘Demographic Dissimilarity and

Workplace Inclusion’, Journal of Management Studies, 36(7), pp. 1013–1031. doi: 10.1111/1467-

6486.00168.

Pless, N. and Maak, T. (2004) ‘Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes and

Practice’, Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), pp. 129–147. doi: 10.1007/s10551-004-9465-8.

Prasad, P. and Mills, A. (1997) ‘From Showcase to Shadow’, in Managing the Organizational Melting

Pot. Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity. SAGE Publications, p. 395.

Qu, S. Q. and Dumay, J. (2011) ‘The qualitative research interview’, Qualitative Research in Accounting

& Management, 8(3), pp. 238–264. doi: 10.1108/11766091111162070.

Raelin, J. (2011) ‘From leadership-as-practice to leaderful practice’, Leadership, 7(2), pp. 195–211. doi:

10.1177/1742715010394808.

Randel, A. E. et al. (2016) ‘Leader inclusiveness, psychological diversity climate, and helping

behaviors’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), pp. 216–234. doi: 10.1108/JMP-04-2013-0123.

Randel, A. E. et al. (2018) ‘Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness

and being valued for uniqueness’, Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), pp. 190–203. doi:

10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002.

Ridgeway, C. L. and Correll, S. J. (2006) ‘Consensus and the Creation of Status Beliefs’, Social Forces,

85(1), pp. 431–453. doi: 10.1353/sof.2006.0139.

68

Roberson, Q. M. (2006) ‘Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations’, Group

and Organization Management, 31(2), pp. 212–236. doi: 10.1177/1059601104273064.

Rowe, M. P. (1990) ‘Barriers to equality: The power of subtle discrimination to maintain unequal

opportunity’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 3(2), pp. 153–163. doi:

10.1007/BF01388340.

Royal Academy of Engineering (2017) Creating cultures where all engineers thrive, Raeng.Org.Uk.

Available at: https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/creating-cultures-where-all-engineers-

thrive.

Sabharwal, M. (2014) ‘Is Diversity Management Sufficient? Organizational Inclusion to Further

Performance’, Public Personnel Management, 43(2), pp. 197–217. doi: 10.1177/0091026014522202.

Scarborough, W. J., Lambouths, D. L. and Holbrook, A. L. (2019) ‘Support of workplace diversity

policies: The role of race, gender, and beliefs about inequality’, Social Science Research, 79(1), pp.

194–210. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.01.002.

Scott, E. K. (2000) ‘Everyone against racism: Agency and the production of meaning in the anti-racism

practices of two feminist organizations’, Theory and Society, 29(6), pp. 785–818.

Shore, L. M. et al. (2011) ‘Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future

research’, Journal of Management, 37(4), pp. 1262–1289. doi: 10.1177/0149206310385943.

Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N. and Sanchez, D. (2018) ‘Inclusive workplaces: A review and model’,

Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), pp. 176–189. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003.

Snyder, C. R. and Fromkin, H. L. (1980) Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference, Canadian

Psychology Psychologie Canadienne. Boston, MA: Springer US. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-3659-4.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1997) Grounded Theory in Practice. SAGE Publications. Available at:

https://books.google.fi/books?id=TtRMolAapBYC&dq=why+grounded+theory&lr=&hl=fi&source=gbs_

navlinks_s.

Su, R., Rounds, J. and Armstrong, P. I. (2009) ‘Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis

of sex differences in interests.’, Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), pp. 859–884. doi: 10.1037/a0017364.

Sue, D. W. et al. (2007) ‘Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice.’,

American Psychologist, 62(4), pp. 271–286. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271.

Sue, D. W. (2010) Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. John

Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Tajfel, H. (1982) ‘Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations’, Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), pp.

69

1–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245.

Tangirala, S. and Ramanujam, R. (2008) ‘EMPLOYEE SILENCE ON CRITICAL WORK ISSUES: THE

CROSS LEVEL EFFECTS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CLIMATE’, Personnel Psychology, 61(1), pp.

37–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00105.x.

Tapia, A. T. (2009) The inclusion paradox: The Obama era and the transformation of global diversity.

Hewitt Associates.

Thomas, D. A. and Ely, R. J. (1996) ‘Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing

Diversity’, Harvard Business Review, pp. 79–90.

Thomas, K. M. and Plaut, V. C. (2007) The many faces of diversity resistance in the workplace, Diversity

Resistance in Organizations. Edited by K. M. Thomas and K. M. Thomas. Psychology Press. doi:

10.4324/9780203809761.

Trauth, E. M., Quesenberry, J. L. and Huang, H. (2009) ‘Retaining women in the U.S. IT workforce:

Theorizing the influence of organizational factors’, European Journal of Information Systems, 18(5), pp.

476–497. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2009.31.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) ‘Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and

organizing’, Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), pp. 654–676. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007.

Walumbwa, F. O. et al. (2008) ‘Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based

Measure†’, Journal of Management, 34(1), pp. 89–126. doi: 10.1177/0149206307308913.

Wasserman, I. (2005) ‘Appreciative inquiry and diversity: The path to relational eloquence’, Aï

Practitioner, 8(August), pp. 36–44.

Wasserman, I. C. (2014) ‘Strengthening Interpersonal Awareness and Fostering Relational Eloquence’,

in Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 128–154.

doi: 10.1002/9781118764282.ch4.

Wasserman, I. C., Gallegos, P. V. and Ferdman, B. M. (2008) ‘Dancing with Resistance: Leadership

Challenges in Fostering a Culture of Inclusion’, in Thomas, K. (ed.) Diversity resistance in

Organizations, pp. 175–200. Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BrmjtjG8JfEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA175&ots=k8IK6pSTJk&s

ig=PJnGRacl3lWO5jVlzsUToLC3BxE.

Winters, M.-F. (2014) ‘From Diversity to Inclusion: An Inclusion Equation’, in Diversity at Work: The

Practice of Inclusion. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 205–228. doi:

10.1002/9781118764282.ch7.

Women in Tech (2019) ‘Diversity as a business value’.

70

Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th edn. SAGE Publications.

Yukl, G. (1989) ‘Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research’, Journal of Management,

15(2), pp. 251–289. doi: 10.1177/014920638901500207.

1

Appendices

Appendix 1: Inclusive Leadership Maturity Model

(Reprinted with creator’s permission)

2

Appendix 2: Table of Interviewees

Company A

Supervisors A1, A2, A3

Employees A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11

Company B

Supervisor B1, B2, B3

Team B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10

3

Appendix 3: Research Interview Consent

4

Appendix 4: Original quotes (in the order of appearance)

“[…] for example, when I’m describing what’s going on in my life et cetera I feel that he likes to, for

example when I say blah blah blah my girlfriend, he prefers let’s say what’s her name. I feel like he

cares what is the person. Not just whatever. I don’t care what’s going on. I feel that he does this from

his side as well. He says the name of his wife, and this makes it much more personal. It feels that I can

actually trust this person. I wouldn’t have any problem to share something in a different level with my

supervisor […]” – A6

“[…] meil on erikoitu aika siihen että katotaan miten meillä menee tavallaan. Että ihan projektin

ulkopuolellaki, että meiän sisäiset [päivittäisen tapaamiset] sisältää toki työasioita mutta myös sellasta

että kerrotaan vaan että miten menee ja tosi usein alotetaan jostain, jos on vaikka kotona jotain

tapahtunu tai tällasta, niin jutellaan niin kun kavereiden kesken tavallaan. Ja se tuntuu tosi vapauttavalta

sit et pääsee töissäki tavallaan avautumaan näistä asioista. Ja sitte ku tietää että muutki on kartalla

siitä et missä sä oot tavallaan, et mikä sun mieliala ja tälleen niin jotenki tuntuu paljon helpommalta

tehä töitä, ku ei tarvi piiloutua siihen, että ”joo täs on kaikki ok” ja näin. Et joo, käydään aika usein läpi

just näitä juttuja, tavallaan henkilökohtasiakin asioita ja se tuntuu aina hyvältä.” – A5

“[…] mul on myös ollu semmonen fiilis että muhun on uskottu ja muhun on luotettu, ja sit on annettu ne

isot saappaat et "täytä nää" ja sit ku mä oon sillee et "en mä pysty" nii sit sanotaan et "kyl sä pystyt,

pistät vaan jalkaan, siin se on et sit sä huomaat" et se on kans semmonen, alusta asti on ollu semmonen

et ei oo tarvinu sinänsä todistella sitten nimenomaan supervisoreitten suuntaan et mitä mä osaan tai

mihin mä pystyn vaan ne on ollu ihan silleen et "joojoo, anna mennä vaan" ja sit on enemmänki ite

silleen et "een mä nyt voi tämmöstä tehä" et se on ollu iso juttu.” – A10

"Must tuntuu et mä oon [yrityksen A työntekijä] koska mä oon täällä ja mä oon sellanen mikä mä oon

tavallaan. [naurahtaa] Että en osaa sanoa, että ehkä [yrityksen A työntekijään] kuuluu se että on tietyllä

tavalla sellain ainutlaatunen ihminen, ja jollon omat kiinnostukset ja taidot ja näin.” – A5

“Mut sit mitä tulee semmoseen ammatilliseen kasvuun ja kehittymiseen, niin siinä semmonen

proaktiivisuus on ollu tosi kiva itte nähdä, et, nostetaan myös esihenkilöitten puolelta sitä semmosta et,

voisko sua kiinnostaa tämmönen juttu tai mä huomasin et tämmönen koulutus on tulossa et voisit ehkä

käydä siinä tai näin pois päin.” – A8

“[Lähijohtajan] kanssa ei oo koskaan tullu sellasta tunnetta että nyt puhutaan vähän siitä, et miten on,

kuinka paljon rahaa on tuonu firmalle ja että miten me voidaan tehostaa sitä rahantekoa. Vaan se fokus

ollu aina siinä tavallaan minussa enemmän ihmisenä ja miten mulla menee ja mihin mä tähtään ja näin.”

– A5

5

“[…] sit just et kuuntelee, siis että, sen tekijöitä täs on se että arvostaa mitä toinen sanoo, arvostaa

toista asiantuntijana. Ja se on osa sitä että kuuntelee eli, se mitä sä sanot on tärkeetä. Sä tiedät mistä

sä puhut.” – B6

“[…] mul oli tosi pitkään semmonen et mä en löytäny paikkaani siinä [mun kompetenssin yhteisössä] ja

must tuntu et mul paljon paremmin, jutut menee yhteen sit taas [toisen kompetenssin ihmisten] kanssa,

tuntu et sielt löyty enemmän sellasii sielunkumppaneita. Mut sit sen mentoroinnin avulla tajus ne omat

vahvuudet [omasa kompetenssissa] ja miks on hyvä että mä en oo samanlaisella profiililla kun ne kaikki

[kollegat]” – A10

“[…] sä jouduit iha tutustumaan johonki täysin, eri henkilöihin sielt sun täältä. Mikä on mummielest sit

taas hirveen hauska ja toisaalta se, luo vähän semmost fiilistä et ”joo että, okei, me ollaan joku, yksikkö.

Me ollaa joku porukka” – B7

“No oikeestaan meillä ei oo kauheesti sitä [yritystä B] sillä lailla korostettu meiän organisaatiossa, ja sit

se risu et miksei tunne kuuluvansa porukkaan on ehkä se että meil on nykyään esimiehillä jotka, esimies

on oikeestaan semmonen ainut rajapinta. Voi olla et työskentelet projektissa jossa ei ole ketään muita

[yrityksen B työntekijöitä] […] niin esimies on se ainut rajapinta, ja esimiehillä on nykyään hirveä määrä

ihmisiä. Ne ei tunne henkilökohtasesti alaisiaan, ja siitä ainakin meiän ryhmässä on tullu paljon

palautetta et miks ihmiset ei kuulu, miksei oo yhteenkuuluvuuden tunnetta et kun ei tunne kavereita.” –

B9

“[…] meille palkataan ihmisii jotka omaksuu jo meidän arvot ja sitte sitä kautta se jengi on semmosta

tietynlaista […], mä oon täs oppinu ymmärtään et kuinka tärkeitä arvoja ne tosiaan on, ja se että ne ei

oo vaan jotain plakaatteja seinällä vaan että ihmiset omaksuu jo ne kun ne tulee meille töihin.” – A11

“Ja valitettavasti sit ku huomaa että "hei tossapa on inspiroiva johtaja ja se tekee kaikki eri tavalla ku

muut" nii kyl se sit vähän ajan päästä lähtee. Se lähtee etsiin sitä yritystä missä on lupa olla erilainen ja

ravistaa kaikkia perustuksia. Kylhän [yritystä B] on naurettukin että kaikilla on samanlainen

liituraitapuku.” – B9

“[…] sitten kun, nousee semmonen, joku, tarve tai semmonen alkaa kuulumaa että ”hei, mä oon nyt eri

mieltä tästä” tai, tässä on, johonki ryhmää mihi mä kuulun ni meil on erilaisii tarpeita kuin näil muilla ja

nä muut ei, joko ollenkaa näe sitä tai ne vaik naureskelee sille et ”noo, ei tää nyt voi olla nii tärkee asia”.

Niin, kyllä se sillon muistuttaa siitä että, nä on nyt aika isoja, piikkejä, täällä. […] Siin tällasta et, kuulun

ja en kuulu. Ja vaihtelee silleen, päivästä ja, kuukaudesta ja, keskustelusta toiseen.” – A7

“Mä veikkaan et meillä, ehkä osittain siksi et ku meil on se D&I-ryhmä, niin se voi olla et lähijohtajat sitte

tietyllä tapaa ehkä ulkoistaa sen aktiivisuuden sille porukalle, joko tarkotuksellisesti tai sitte, koska se

on helpompaa miettimättä asiaa sen kummemmin. Mutta se et semmosta tosi aktiivista otetta, nii ei sitä

ainakaan ihan hirveesti nää.” – A8

6

“Another thing that on the onboard sessions they had some inclusion diversity meeting just to dedicate.

Totally dedicated for it and just to show that the culture of the company is pretty much about it. That

should not have any judgment or any discrimination. […] Everyone is here to work and we respect and

we like each other.” – A6

“Kyl se on se että otetaan se muukin kuin työ mukaan, puhutaan muistakin kuin työasioista, että oppii

tutustuun niihin ihmisiin eikä vaan siihen työhön. Kyl se on iso juttu.” – A11

“Se on ollu mulle semmonen mikä erottaa [yrityksen A] kaikist muist työnantajista, on kivaa töissä ja on

kivaa töitten ulkopuolella niitten ihmisten kanssa.” – A10

“The cons I guess that right away that I don’t see many people that look like me there. Of course, that

will come to your mind I’m here just to represent this class or represent these people. That comes many

thoughts on it. Am I here because I’m good enough for this company or am I here because they need

people like me to represent?” – A6

“Vois sanoo että sen jälkeen kun mä lähin pois sieltä päällikköhommista niin tippu outsideriksi, takaisin.

Eli näkee kuinka vähän sitä oleellista tietoa tai niitä perusteluja tulee tänne lattiatasolle asti. Että oon

aika lailla outsider.” – B9

“[…] siin oli ehkä myös semmonen et se sisäinen huumori siin palaveris oli myös semmonen mitä mä

en ymmärtäny sillon ku mä istuin sinne neukkariin sisään et mä oli vähän sillain et "mitä tääl tapahtuu"

ja sittemmin mä oon tajunnu et okei siin oli paljon semmosta läppää mitä mä en siin kohtaa tajunnu, ja

nyt mä tajuun, mutta olin vaan alkuun niin outsider että ei käsittäny.” – A10

“Kyl mä aika siin, sii jossain, jos nyt ei iha ulkopiirissä niin, siellä jossain ulkoreunoilla kuitenkin että,

aika vähäsii jotenki.. tuntee ittelle sellasta että ”joo että okei mä pystysin ihan oikeesti, vaikuttamaan

johonki näihin” että, kyl se tuntuu olevan enemmän se fiilis että, kyl se tulee sielt jostain, jossain tasolla,

jotku ihmiset ovat päättäneet jotain […]” – B7

“[…] tääki haastattelu on avannu silmiä että, et voisko tää olla semmonen asia mitä, vois proaktiivisesti

nostaa esii. Et just se että monella saattaa olla... et mul on jotenki vähä ehkä ruusunen käsitys siitä

että, kaikki on hyvin.” – A2

“No mun työskentelyyni [organisaation diversiteettitavoitteilla] ei oo mitään vaikutusta koska, mainitsin

jo aikasemminkin että, en mä ajattele tämmösiä asioita. Jos on kyvykäs henkilö, työhaastattelussa, niin

palkkaa, oli sitten [naurahtaa] taustat mitä tahansa. En mä oo koskaan ees ajatellu tämmösiä asioita.”

– B3