Inclusive Leadership Development

Abstract

Trends in extant literature suggest that more relational and identity-based leadership approaches are necessary for leadership that can harness the benefits of the diverse and globalized workforces of today and the future. In this study, we compared general leadership development programs (GLDPs) and women’s leadership development programs (WLDPs) to understand to what extent program descriptions addressed inclusive leadership—leadership that draws on relational skills to value both the uniqueness and belonging needs of diverse identities to create business effectiveness for the long term. GLDPs predominantly reflected pedagogical assumptions of separate knowing, development of the autonomous self, and masculine leadership approaches of agentic and transactional leadership. In contrast, pedagogical assumptions of connected knowing, development of the relational self, and relational and identity-based leadership approaches were more prevalent in WLDPs. These findings suggest that WLDPs continue to offer significant value to supporting women leaders in their advancement, yet both WLDPs and GLDPs can do more to be inclusive of additional diverse identities to better develop leaders of the future who can lead with inclusive behaviors. We suggest a pedagogical framework for inclusive leadership development that may better balance and promote synergies between achieving business priorities and relating to others and their diverse identities.

The Leadership Lab for Women: Advancing and Retaining Women in STEM through Professional Development

“…Research in women’s leadership development suggests a number of factors promote an ascent to leadership, including self-awareness (Taylor et al, 2016), a holistic self-concept and identity (Ely et al, 2011; Debebe et al, 2016; Sugiyama et al, 2016) and a personal vision (Buse and Bilimoria, 2014). Having an understanding of implicit bias including workplace practices is also essential.…”

“…Research from several streams shaped the design for the program including: why women persist in STEM roles (Buse and Bilimoria, 2014), self-awareness and self-efficacy in women’s leadership development (O’Neil et al, 2015; Sugiyama et al, 2016), emotional intelligence in leadership effectiveness (Goleman et al, 2002), the catalytic power of a personal vision (Smith et al, 2009; Buse and Bilimoria, 2014; Passarelli, 2015) and the positive impact of coaching relationships (Smith et al, 2009). Intentional Change Theory (ICT) provided a framework for participants to engage in professional development.…”

Claiming the corner office: Female CEO careers and implications for leadership development

“…This would allow researchers to build on this study drawing on larger sam- Such HR research also needs to be more anchored to psychology. Recent research on gender and leadership has approached the study of women's leadership development as identity development (Ely et al, 2011;Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2007;Sugiyama et al, 2016).…”

“…Brown, 2016). Both could benefit women, either to build networks for social support and overcome macho cultures or to more assiduously build political capital.…”

Breaking the Zero-Sum Game: Transforming Societies through Inclusive Leadership

“…This shared ownership is very different from organizational stakeholders acquiescing ("buying-in") to a leader's process or solution, and is what Zimmerman, Reason, Rykert, Gitterman, Christian, and Gardam (2013), in a healthcare context, called, "front-line ownership". Sugiyama, Cavanagh, van Esch, Bilimoria, and Brown (2016) framed inclusion as, "enhancing the relational self-awareness necessary to consider multiple identities and perhaps even intersectionality of identities in meeting belonging and uniqueness needs" (p. 256). Thus, the key benefit of inclusive leadership is in "relating to others in a way that makes them feel valued for their unique talents and backgrounds" (p. 257).…”