Every Rose Has Its Thorns - How Exemplars Manage the Tensions in Inclusive Leadership

Kim, Jennifer Y.; Kark, Ronit; Zheng, Wei Article — Published Version Every Rose Has Its Thorns- How Exemplars Manage the Tensions in Inclusive Leadership Journal of Business Ethics Suggested Citation: Kim, Jennifer Y.; Kark, Ronit; Zheng, Wei (2025) : Every Rose Has Its Thorns- How Exemplars Manage the Tensions in Inclusive Leadership, Journal of Business Ethics, ISSN 1573-0697, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Vol. 202, Iss. 2, pp. 417-437, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-05993-z This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/333353 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of Business Ethics (2025) 202:417–437 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-05993-z ORIGINAL PAPER Every Rose Has Its Thorns‑ How Exemplars Manage theTensions inInclusive Leadership WeiZheng1 · Jennifer Y.Kim2· RonitKark3,4,5 Received: 5 May 2024 / Accepted: 19 March 2025 / Published online: 30 April 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract In our increasingly polarizing world, inclusive leadership practices that aim to foster belongingness and uniqueness for all organizational members become essential to individual and organizational thriving. However, according to optimal distinctiveness theory, inclusive efforts may involve managing the tension between meeting the needs for belongingness and uniqueness, which can be compounded in contexts with diverse representations of subgroups. This tension has received limited attention in the conceptualization of inclusive leadership, which constrains further theory development. To better understand this issue, we interviewed 39 exemplary inclusive leaders to identify how they experience and manage potential tensions underlying inclusive leadership practices. Our findings reveal three tensions underlying the pull toward diversification and that toward integration, as experienced by these exemplars of inclusive leadership: (1) seeking divergence vs. seeking similarities, (2) providing differential support vs. providing equal support; and (3) encouraging subgroups vs. encouraging connections across subgroups. This research provides a new lens that views inclusive leadership practices as the management of tension-filled practices that celebrate diverse people and perspectives while seeking similarities to rally members, that correct disparities among subgroups while ensuring support for everyone, and that provide comfortable enclaves for similar people while connecting dissimilar people across subgroups. Based on our findings, we provide theoretical implications for future theoretical extensions, refinement, and measurement of inclusive leadership, as well as practical implications on how to develop inclusive leaders. Keywords Inclusive leadership· Inclusion· Diversity· Tension· Leadership· Qualitative Introduction Ethical actions by organizations confer “benefits to various stakeholders in the form of equity and social justice, personal development of organizational members, and improved organizational performance” (Bernstein etal., 2020, p. 396). Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in organizations that aim to increase representations of people from diverse backgrounds and provide equitable distribution of opportunities and resources to all individuals are key levers for realizing these benefits. However, in the United States, DEI initiatives have been lumped together and are facing unprecedented backlash, as some perceive them as benefiting certain groups over others (Department of Education, 2025; Schneid, 2025; The White House, 2025). Such an approach to DEI is inconsistent with research. Studies have shown that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives each have distinct focuses (Bernstein etal., 2020; Roberson, 2006). Among these, inclusion is specifically aimed at * Wei Zheng [email protected] Jennifer Y. Kim Jennifer_Y[email protected] Ronit Kark [email protected] 1 School ofBusiness, Stevens Institute ofTechnology, 422 Babbio Center, 1 Castle Point Terrace, HobokenNJ07030, USA 2 Tufts Center fortheStudy ofDrug Development, Tufts School ofMedicine, 145 Harrison Ave, Boston, MA02111, USA 3 Department ofPsychology, Bar-Ilan University, 5290000Ramat-Gan, Israel 4 Business School, University ofExeter, Streatham Court, Rennes Drive, ExeterEX44PU, UK 5 Institute forAdvanced Study (TUM-IAS), Technical University ofMunich, Garching, Germany 418 W.Zheng et al. valuing and empowering all people in the workplace, regardless of their backgrounds (Ferdman & Deane, 2014). Different from leadership that primarily aims to increase diversity (i.e., the representations of different social groups in the organization, Roberson, 2006), inclusive leadership captures leader behaviors that aim to foster all individuals’ experience of belongingness, uniqueness, and authenticity, convey an invitation and appreciation for diverse contributions, and involve others in discussions and decisions (Jansen etal., 2014; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Panicker etal., 2017; Randel etal., 2018). Such leadership behaviors are reported by 72% of employees experiencing high levels of workplace inclusion versus only 2% of employees experiencing low levels of it (Bourke, 2018), and these behaviors help foster a just, caring, and ethical environment (Li & Peng, 2022; O’Leary & Weathington, 2006; Qi & Liu, 2017). However, making all people feel included, especially those from diverse backgrounds, is not an easy task. Major tensions have been documented in relevant literatures. For example, optimal distinctiveness theory, which has served as the basis of a prominent conceptualization of inclusion as both a sense of belongingness and a sense of uniqueness, has posited that the drive for belongingness and that for uniqueness work in opposite directions. While people can experience both belongingness and uniqueness in the same group (Bettencourt etal., 2006; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004), balancing them can create tension: When one need is fulfilled, the need for the other is driven up (Brewer, 1991; Leonardelli etal., 2010). Furthermore, although belongingness and uniqueness are universally needed by all people, what it takes for people to experience belongingness and uniqueness differs across situations and across individuals. In particular, historically marginalized members are more vigilant than dominant group members in detecting cues that suggest whether their identities are devalued or valued within a given environment, due to their lived experience dealing with stereotypes, discrimination, and devaluation (Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Murphy etal., 2007; Purdie-Vaughns etal., 2008; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Such differences may engender different reactions of marginalized and dominant group members to the same leadership behaviors (Nishii & Leroy, 2022), as has been shown in their differential reactions to diversity management practices and approaches (Dover etal., 2016; Plaut etal., 2011, 2018). How leaders manage to find the optimal distinctiveness that balances the belongingness and uniqueness needs for different subgroups in the context of diversity has not been adequately addressed. Given these tensions related to inclusion, which are inevitably entangled with leadership practices, an in-depth look at how leaders navigate these tensions would be critical to developing a richer, more realistic and ethical understanding of inclusive leadership. In this study, we take a tension lens to empirically examine what potential tensions may be involved in inclusive leadership practices and how leaders manage them. We advance the literature on inclusive leadership in several ways. First, we explicate specific inclusive leadership practices, especially those that may incur tension, enriching our understanding of inclusive leadership. Prior studies have theorized tensions embedded in inclusion and inclusive leadership (Ferdman, 2017; Waldman & Sparr, 2022; Yang & Zheng, 2020), but we do not know what and how tensions manifest in the lived experience of inclusive leaders, and how leaders manage them. Insights into these questions can help build theoretical constructs and relationships that inform the content, antecedents, and outcomes of various aspects of inclusive leadership, thus advancing the theoretical development of inclusive leadership, a relatively new area of research. Second, although diversity and inclusion are intricately connected in practice, in scholarly work, there is a paucity of theorizing that connects employee diversity to inclusive leadership (Nishii & Leroy, 2022). More specifically, although the social identity and diversity literatures have established the influence of people’s social identities on their individual experiences as well as group dynamics (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Turner etal., 1994), these linkages have not been substantively incorporated into the inclusive leadership literature. Our empirical work gives voice to exemplary inclusive leaders in diverse settings, which can offer insights into how social and personal identities may factor into inclusive leadership work. These insights can help shed light on the contextual and dynamic aspects of inclusive leadership, paving the way for richer theorizations of inclusive leadership’s contingent effects in future research. Third, our findings disrupt a halo effect of inclusive leadership, similar to the halo effect identified in servant leadership (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Turner etal., 1994). We point out the risks and tensions of leading inclusively, providing richer insights into the realistic dilemmas and struggles of practicing inclusive leadership. Such findings have important implications for the development and training of inclusive leaders. In addition to delineating inclusive leadership behaviors, our findings around tensions can apprise aspiring and evolving inclusive leaders of the roadblocks that lie ahead and inform them with strategies to navigate them. The focus on the cultivation of mindsets and skills to harness common tensions on the road to inclusion can help leaders adopt a flexible and contextualized approach to address the dynamics of diverse members and groups. 419Every Rose Has Its Thorns- How Exemplars Manage theTensions inInclusive Leadership Theoretical Background Inclusive leadership is built around the concept of inclusion, which, from a psychological perspective, refers to the individual’s experience of belongingness and uniqueness (Shore etal., 2011) or belongingness and authenticity (Jansen etal., 2014), and from a functional perspective, refers to individuals’ involvement in work groups, participation in the decision-making process, and access to information and resources (Mor-Barak & Cherin, 1998). Based on these definitions, inclusive leadership has been defined as leadership behaviors that facilitate individuals’ feeling part of the group (belongingness) and maintain their sense of individuality (uniqueness) (Randel etal., 2018). More specific to the type of behaviors involved, inclusive leadership encompasses behaviors that “exhibit openness, accessibility, and availability in their interactions with followers” (Carmeli etal., 2010. p. 250), leaders’ conveying an invitation and appreciation for disparate and diverse contributions, and including others in discussions and decisions (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Panicker etal., 2017). More systematically, Randel etal.’ s (2018) conceptualization involves leadership behaviors that facilitate belongingness, including supporting individuals as group members, ensuring justice and equity, sharing decision-making; as well as leadership behaviors that value uniqueness, including encouraging diverse contributions, and helping groups members fully contribute. Central to current conceptualizations of inclusive leadership are the dual demands for addressing the need for belongingness and the need for uniqueness among organizational members (Randel etal., 2018). Premised on optimal distinctiveness theory, individuals are driven by two competing needs: the need to belong and the need to be unique (Brewer, 1991). A sense of belongingness captures the extent to which one sees oneself as being similar to and a part of a certain social group (Hogg, 2001), whereas a sense of uniqueness encompasses the extent to which one differs from others regarding one’s unique characteristics (Banaji & Prentice, 1994). These two drives work in opposite directions but are also related: When individuals experience high uniqueness, the drive for belongingness intensifies; conversely, when they experience high belongingness, the drive for uniqueness becomes stronger; but individuals also seek to and can achieve a balance between the two (Brewer, 1991; Leonardelli etal., 2010). Translated into the context of inclusive leadership, tensions exist between fostering belongingness – the absorption of individuals into the group – and celebrating individuals’ distinctive contributions (Jonsen etal., 2020; Shore etal., 2018). For example, on the one hand, leaders can promote inclusion by valuing the uniqueness of employees from marginalized social identity groups (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Shore etal., 2011). However, primarily feeling unique at work may pose a challenge for marginalized employees, because it can elicit feelings of isolation and their expertise may be narrowly perceived and limited to identity-related domains (Ely & Thomas, 2001; McCluney & Rabelo, 2019). Further, leadership practices that support marginalized groups may incur negative perceptions and backlash from dominant group members, such as White men, for whom these initiatives may be seen as preferential treatment and unfair (Windscheid etal., 2017). On the other hand, leadership practices that promote similarities can lead marginalized group members to downplay their uniqueness to assimilate into the dominant culture (Roberts, 2005), which dampens their sense of uniqueness and authenticity (McCluney & Rabelo, 2019). As such, tensions can underpin various leadership practices that promote either uniqueness or belongingness, creating challenges for leaders who strive to facilitate both. Relatedly, research on diversity practices sheds light on the potentially varying reactions different individuals, especially those from different social status groups, may have toward inclusive leadership practices (Nishii & Leroy, 2022). Although inclusive leadership is focused on including everyone, diversity is an integral part of organizational life, and leaders are inextricably involved in addressing the dynamics originating from diversity, intentionally or unintentionally (Jin etal., 2017; Mor Barak etal., 2022). On the one hand, identity-blind practices that ensure that each individual is treated the same regardless of their subgroup memberships, may invoke meritocratic ideals, but minimize subgroup differences and ignore inequitable treatment of nondominant groups (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995). This can perpetuate biases and discrimination (Amis etal., 2020; DiTomaso etal., 2007; Leslie, 2019) and dampen marginalized groups’ experience of inclusion (Nishii & Leroy, 2022). On the other hand, identity-conscious management practices acknowledge and attempt to address the disparities experienced by marginalized group members due to past injustices and present inequities (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995), which may activate the view that marginalized group members are less competent or need help (Leslie, 2019), and incur perceptions of unfairness and pushback from dominant group members (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995), lowering dominant group members’ experience of inclusion. Empirical research has found that dominant groups tend to respond more positively to identity-blind practices, whereas marginalized groups prefer identity-conscious practices that acknowledge and value group differences (Dover etal., 2016; Plaut etal., 2011, 2018). Although recent research shows that both identity-blind and identity-conscious practices can be implemented for organizational effectiveness (Konrad etal., 2021), it is not clear how leaders achieve a balance between these two in their day-to-day operations. To cast light on this question, we examine inclusive leadership from a tension perspective. Existing research 420 W.Zheng et al. has provided some theoretical insights into the tensions in inclusion and inclusive leadership, such as those between self-expression and identity (i.e., belongingness vs. distinctiveness), boundaries and norms (i.e., stable norms vs. shifting norms), and safety and comfort (i.e., authenticity vs. openness to change) (Ferdman, 2017); those related to information (i.e., encouraging information heterogeneity vs. developing shared mental models), identity (i.e., fostering a superordinate identity vs. affirming subgroup identities), and status (i.e., promoting equality vs. providing differential treatment) (Yang & Zheng, 2020); as well as those between diversity (i.e., differences) and unity (i.e., sameness in the pursuit of common goals, purpose, and values) (Waldman & Sparr, 2022). These theoretical insights provide a general picture of the potential tensions underlying inclusive leadership practices, but we do not have a concrete picture of what and how inclusive leaders experience tension when carrying out their everyday leadership functions, and how they manage the tensions. Methods To inductively uncover what and how tensions may arise when leaders practice inclusion and how leaders manage the tensions, we chose a qualitative, interpretive method for data collection and analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 2009). We used a grounded theory approach, examining the data as we consulted relevant literatures to derive meaning and develop an understanding of how leaders experience and manage tensions in their inclusive leadership (Gioia etal., 2000, 2013). Respondents Exemplars’ experience helps us understand how a complex concept works and evolves at an intense and advanced level (Bronk etal., 2013). Because our study aimed to surface the tensions experienced by those who are deeply engaged in inclusive leadership, we need exemplars as informants. Based on this reasoning, we bounded our sample to exemplary inclusive leaders—defined as leaders who were nominated or awarded a national or local DEI award or were peer-nominated as exemplary inclusive leaders. We first identified and recruited awardees of DEI awards in the US that recognized leaders who championed DEI effort from 2017 to 2022. Examples of such awards included Diversity Journal’s Diversity Leader Award, Modern Healthcare’s Top Diversity Leaders in Healthcare, Diversity Leader Alliance’s Diversity and Inclusion Leader Awards, Mogul’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) Leaders, and so on. The criteria for the awards varied but centered on leaders’ focus on promoting a diverse and inclusive environment in one’s organization. This process resulted in 23 participants. To enlarge our sample size and increase participant variety, we extended our search to peer-nominated inclusive leaders by asking Human Resources (HR) professionals from a large variety of organizations to recommend internal leaders who were regarded by their colleagues as role models of inclusive behaviors, regardless of rank or job function. Using a commercial marketing company’s database, our search targeted HR managers within organizations that had at least 500 employees across all industries. This resulted in 16 additional participants. At this point, because the responses started to show substantially similar content, we halted our search for additional participants. The whole process resulted in a final sample of 39 respondents – 26 women and 13 men, who were 41% Black, 28% White, 13% Asian, 10% Latino/a, and 8% mixed race. They held jobs in general management (44%), DEI (33%), and other functions (see Table1). Table 1 Participant background Information N = 39 Demographic variable Number (%) Gender Woman 26 (67%) Man 13 (33%) Race Black 16 (41%) White 11 (28%) Asian 5 (13%) Latinx 4 (10%) Mixed race 3 (8%) Functional Area General Management 17 (44%) Diversity Equity and Inclusion 13 (33%) Human Resources 4 (10%) Marketing 2 (5%) Design 1 (3%) Information Technology 1 (3%) Legal 1 (3%) Industry Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 9 (23%) Manufacturing 7 (18%) Finance and Insurance 6 (15%) Information 6 (15%) Public administration 3 (8%) Administrative services 2 (5%) Utilities 2 (5%) Educational services 2 (5%) Other services 1 (3%) Accommodation and Food Services 1 (3%) 421Every Rose Has Its Thorns- How Exemplars Manage theTensions inInclusive Leadership Data Collection Data collection was done via virtual semi-structured interviews conducted by the first two authors. We asked the participants to share examples about how they: built inclusion in their teams and organizations; fostered belongingness, authenticity, and uniqueness; andhandled the challenges they faced while enacting inclusive leadership (see Appendix A). Interviews occurred over the phone or zoom between July 2022 and October 2023, and lasted approximately one hour each. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of the interview. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Given that the definition of inclusive leadership can vary from person to person, during the interviews, we purposefully refrained from defining “inclusive leadership” for the respondents to allow for their subjective interpretation and understanding on what inclusive leadership is and how they enact inclusive leadership practices. In presenting our findings, we omitted organizational names and used pseudonyms for individuals. Data Analysis We adopted a grounded theory approach for data analysis, referencing the Gioia method wherein theory is built through several iterative and evolving stages, from open coding to axial coding, and then to selective coding (Gioia etal., 2013; Glaser & Strauss, 2009). Throughout the data analysis process, from coding to theory generation, the two first authors kept memos of our insights, thoughts, and reflections, and shared them during bi-weekly meetings over several months, where we discussed emergent codes and compared our notes. When discrepancies between the authors emerged during this process, the relevant narratives were revisited and discussed until the two authors reached consensus on interpretation. Further, these stages were neither linear nor mutually exclusive. For instance, the authors started to explore the data regarding inclusive leadership practices which triggered questions and coding around how leaders deployed resources and supported marginalized versus dominant group members. As patterns emerged that triggered new questions, we returned to the data, and recoded relevant data based on these emerging themes. See Fig.1 for the resulting data structure. Below, we explain each stage in more detail. Stage 1: Open Coding In this stage, the first two authors read an initial set of 12 transcripts, and generated and discussed invivo codes (i.e., codes that contain key phrases in the participants’ own words, Glaser & Strauss, 2009). In this stage, the two authors noticed differences in their individual coding, such as author 1 using more detailed codes whereas author 2 using broader codes. After discussions about this within the authorship team, we agreed to use the more detailed codes, capturing participants’ wording as much as possible and refraining from generalizing them. This helped us identify specific practices, such as aligning people to organizational mission and valuing and celebrating different holidays. This initial process lasted a few weeks during which the authors Seek differences: •Seek diverse input •Listen to everyone even those who have a different way of thinking •Celebrate different holidays Categories Support disadvantaged members differently: •Serve as voice for underrepresented members •Provide additional time for underrepresented members •Persuade executives to offer remote work to underrepresented members Tension 3: Separate People vs. Connect People Tension 2: Support People Differently vs. Support Everyone Equally Themes Tension 1: Seek Differences vs. Seek Similarities Diversification & Integration Aggregate Theme Seek similarities: •Align people to organizational mission and values •Inclusion is within our five cultural pillars •Inclusion is part of our business strategy Support everyone: •Open communication to support people •Open-door policy •Have regular check-ins with all employees Create subgroups to make people feel safe and comfortable: •Create ERGs •Encourage people to participate in ERGs •Create events for underrepresented people Create connections across groups and individuals: •Connect ERGs based on synergy •Invite men to join women’s groups •Help people understand others Fig. 1 Data Structure 422 W.Zheng et al. met regularly to compare notes and discuss meanings of the codes. Once a common understanding of the coding was achieved, the remaining 27 transcripts were divided between the two authors who independently read the transcripts to generate more open codes (Corbin & Strauss, 2007), focusing on respondent’s thoughts, motivations, and behaviors that revolved around inclusive leadership. In this process, the authors continued to hold regular discussions to ensure coding consistency, and shared with each other all coding files, including codebooks and coded transcripts. Stage 2: Axial Coding This stage involved the creation of second-order categories by consolidating the vast number of first-order codes into abstracted themes (Gioia etal., 2013). In this step, the first two authors grouped codes related to inclusive leadership practices together based on similarities. Throughout this process, the two authors regularly compared the categories they independently generated and reconciled the differences. For example, author 1 independently aggregated the leadership practices into 14 categories while author 2 aggregated them into 19 categories. The categories in the two lists were similar, with some combined or divided into more specific practices in one list compared to the other. Detailed conversations were held by the two authors to understand each category and create a common set of categories. For example, we merged codes related to "seeking diverse input from employees” and “celebrating different holidays” into the larger category of “seeking differences among people and perspectives” that captures the idea of seeking, celebrating, and valuing variances in people’s background and thinking. Through this process, we agreed on 16 categories of leadership practices. Stage 3: Selective Coding During the process of abstracting, we noted that some categories were at odds with another category, which highlighted tensions or pulls that the leaders had to navigate while building inclusion within their organization. For example, the category of “supporting disadvantaged members differently” contrasted with the category of “supporting everyone equally.” We then conducted closer examinations of seemingly contradictory categories in tandem, along with their codes and quotations. All three authors engaged in regular discussions to compare possible frameworks that best fit the data. Through this process, we consulted relevant literatures to understand the theoretical implications of our emergent frameworks. We developed multiple frameworks to organize the categories, including initial attempts at a quadrant model and a four-theme framework capturing the tensions, which eventually evolved into three common themes of tension under one unifying theme that underpinned our participants’ inclusive leadership: the dual emphasis on diversification and on integration. Additionally, while identifying these tensions, we also explored leaders’ strategies of managing them as well as the outcomes of these inclusive leadership practices. Findings An overarching theme that emerged from our data is that inclusive leadership practices revolved around holding on to both diversifying people and perspectives (i.e., diversification) and building unity and connection (i.e., integration) in organizational life. More specifically, tensions emerged in the following three sets of inclusive leadership practices: (1) diversifying and homogenizing: seeking out and highlighting divergence among people and perspectives, and seeking out and highlighting commonalities among people, (2) differentiating and equalizing: providing tailored support, resources, or opportunities that address unique needs of members, especially those from marginalized groups, and providing the same support to everyone, and (3) separating and connecting: separating people into subgroups and connecting people across subgroups. We elaborate on the leaders’ experience and management of each tension below. Please see graphical illustrations of the tensions in Fig.2 and a visual representation of our findings in Fig.3. Managing theTension Between Diversifying andHomogenizing The first tension arises from leadership practices that seek out and highlight heterogeneity among people, and those that highlight commonalities among employees. See Table2 Sect.1 for sample quotations. Diversifying On the one hand, leaders embraced and highlighted differences due to social group membership and related experiences of employees and proactively encouraged different perspectives and viewpoints in organizational life. A frequently mentioned example by the respondents was celebrating all cultural holidays, such as Diwali and Kwanzaa, as well as honoring different social groups through events such as Women’s History month and LGBTQ Pride Month. Underpinning these celebrations was a focus on revealing and spotlighting the heterogeneity among people and helping organizational members learn to embrace differences. For example, Harry, an African American CEO of a consulting firm, celebrated a wide variety of holidays, “we would set aside time to learn when there were different heritage months… I would oftentimes be on panels or I would interview certain folks just to bring my leadership support 423Every Rose Has Its Thorns- How Exemplars Manage theTensions inInclusive Leadership to it.” Similarly, William, an Asian American vice president of a large financial services firm, illustrated this practice: For example, my family is quite traditional. We just had the Autumn Moon Festival - I brought in moon cakes. I encourage everyone to bring in their own cultural delicacies if they feel comfortable. I have someone on my team that is Muslim, and we frequently talk about religion and going to mosque. Aside from celebrating different holidays that accentuate differences among people, leaders proactively looked for diversity among their employees and their perspectives. For example, the leaders commonly described consciously inviting a wide variety of people into their conversations. Grace, a White American head of a public safety organization, made sure that she put together work groups that were not all from dominant or marginalized groups when making work assignments. The spirit of these diversity-seeking practices is encapsulated in the comment made by Sara, a Latina American executive from a professional services firm: How can our talent pool be diverse? How can our client base be diverse? Are we following our DEI initiatives for the year? Is that supplier to the company a minority-owned business?... It's not only that we work with our candidates from different cultural and gender backgrounds, but we also work with clients from different backgrounds. And we make sure that all aspects in the workplace are oscillating. Leaders also focused on deeper-level diversity, such as encouraging different workstyles, personalities, and leadership styles. Mary, an African American executive at a financial services company, for example, shared that she welcomed individuality, saying “[people] can show up as themselves and not have to conform into a specific style of leadership…We’re the type of organization that wants to have…naysayers…not just looking for folks who think, walk, talk, exactly like [everyone else].” Kristin, an African American executive at a healthcare organization, shared a team building activity that she called a “BioBook” where employees shared non-work-related things about themselves, their family, and their history, highlighting the unique background that each employee brought. However, celebrating and looking for differences alone can backfire, as Gerry, an African American administrator in a higher education institution, pointed out, “a lot of people think differences mean conflict.” An extreme example was the conflict between two groups in the company of Danielle, an African American chief diversity officer in a technology company, where one group advocated that the company fly the Pride flag (a symbol of support for Fig. 2 Graphical Illustrations of Inclusive Leadership Tensions and Tension Management 424 W.Zheng et al. LGBTQ + communities) while another group vehemently opposed it. Homogenizing Leaders also engaged in homogenizing practices that highlighted and created similarities among people to unify them against a common backdrop rather than remain in discord. Examples of this practice included conscientiously rallying employees behind the company’s mission, core values, or business need. One common practice was presenting inclusion as a core value to drive business, a concept that was illustrated by Joeling, a multiracial HR head in a manufacturing firm, “we have five of them [company values such as achieve together, invite diversity, etc.]…All five of the pillars are related to inclusion…We train all of our managers on the cultural pillars.” Leaders also rallied their employees by emphasizing the business imperative. For instance, Danielle shared that: At the end of the day, the work that we do is to drive a better experience for our employees to come to work, to deliver in their jobs that we hire them for. Frankly, we're not a nonprofit, we're not here to just support employees’ desires. We’re doing this for the good of our hearts. Yes, it’s a moral imperative, but it’s also a business imperative. Other ways of homogenizing involve appealing to the personal values that employees shared. Mary, for example, shared how the shift to working from home during the pandemic changed the company culture to a more “relaxed environment” where employees felt more comfortable not wearing “corporate armor,” and how this unified employees to create a culture around authenticity where people could share more of themselves, such as posting photos of their children on LinkedIn or sharing who they were outside of work. Just as a singular focus on differences can backfire, a singular focus on similarities can also have unintended negative consequences. For example, Gerry explained, “I hate the ‘I don’t see color’ [saying], because that’s saying that you don’t see who I am. [But] that’s part of my life. That’s part of my walk.” Evana, an Asian American head of DEI in a manufacturing company, recognized that because people usually carry specific lens with assumptions that can be dangerous, solely focusing on similarities can reflect “only our own view, and kind of an echo chamber.” Integrating Diversifying andHomogenizing To incorporate both diversifying and homogenizing, leaders shared their part-whole integration to embrace both. For example, Earl, a White American founding partner of a professional services firm, explained that the heterogeneity among people Tension 1: seek differences vs. seek similaries Tension 2: support differently vs. support equally Tension 3: separate vs. connect Tension 1 Management Strategy: part-whole Tension 2 Management Strategy: means-ends; reframing Tension 3 Management Strategy: cross-collaboraon; structured connecon Meta Strategies •Accept dissasfacon •Focus on learning and progress over ideal outcomes •Focus on controllables over uncontrollables Intrapersonal: stress, pride, peace of mind Employee: inclusive experience, behavior, performance Tension Management Strategies Tensions in Inclusive Leadership Outcomes Fig. 3 Visual Representation of Findings 431Every Rose Has Its Thorns- How Exemplars Manage theTensions inInclusive Leadership The second way is to formally achieve a type of connected separation where leaders provided systemized structure to solidify connections among ERGs. For example, Ava, an Asian American senior executive in an information technology company, shared, “every ERG has a leadership team, and every leadership team has an allyship lead. And the job of this person is literally to build allyship with other ERGs and majority groups.” Similarly, Amy’s organization created a council structure to foster connections between ERGs, “Even though we have the different ERG groups, they actually work together on some of those initiatives and that’s why we have the actual Council as well, because the Council actually oversees the full company goals and those are cascaded down to the groups.” By formally and informally creating structures and practices that enabled the formation of subgroups with similar identities while fostering collaboration and connection between them, leaders helped facilitate true inclusion that provides space for subgroups to maintain their distinctiveness while building connective tissues between distinct subgroups. Persistent Tensions andLeaders’ Meta‑Management Strategies toRemain Resilient In summary, to enact inclusion, the leaders navigated the tensions embedded between diversifying and homogenizing, differentiating and equalizing, and separating and connecting. Further, such tensions are not temporary, but appear to persist on the leaders’ road to inclusion. The leaders acknowledged the tensions as continuous efforts to meet everyone’s needs, often without definitive resolutions. For example, Linda shared, “it’s the full spectrum—we’re doing too much… to we’re not doing enough… It’s the full gamut of people who think we’re doing exactly the right thing, at the right pace, and too slow, and too fast,” highlighting the difficult reality faced by many inclusive leaders whose actions may face backlash from dominant group members, and varying degrees of support even within marginalized group members. The impossibility of meeting the needs and expectations of all individuals at the same time may be one of the reasons why inclusive leadership roles can be emotionally demanding and may contribute to leader burnout. Of note, the leaders demonstrated strategies to manage the emotional labor that accompanied the need to continuously foster inclusion for all individuals. To make peace with the persistent tensions, leaders used internal meta-strategies to sustain themselves, which included acknowledging that they cannot please everyone, and rather than being discouraged by this, they drew strength from focusing on learning and progress, however, incremental, over ideal outcomes. They did so by first expressing their acceptance that not everyone is going to be happy with the actions of an inclusive leader or support the leader’s efforts, as Peach put it, “I’m not going to get everybody on board, and I just have to accept that.” Likewise, Earl commented, “you can’t make everybody happy. I wanted partners on the D&I committee. Beyond me, I wanted other partners. But with 150 people, not everything is going to resonate with everybody.” Based on the acceptance, a stance of continuous learning and growth emerged, which prioritized progress over immediate outcomes, as illustrated by Evan who emphasized that a growth mindset is the foundation upon which inclusive competencies can be built. Similarly, Linda commented: DEI is not something that is going to look the same today as it will look in 10 years…So it’s really just ensuring that I myself am coming to a place of curiosity and an empathy around what our employees are going through, and how do I create forums for them to be able to express themselves if it is impacting them, and then we can kind of come to a place of learning and growth from that. The learning stance goes hand in hand with a focus on processes that build up inclusion that are within, rather than out of their control. For example, Ava talked about staying focused on her objectives rather than actual outcomes, “Have we solved everything? No. But we’ve shown the company by talking about allyship at an org wide level. That is really important.” Correspondingly, Denise, a White American HR executive at a law firm, voiced the same thought, “we’re not going to solve racism in America. But we can keep these issues top of mind and give very specific calls to action in your next meeting… We will continue to make progress year over year and move in a way that feels authentic to us as an organization.” By using these meta-strategies, acknowledging that not all matters will be resolved within their trajectory and taking the lens of acceptance, learning, and progress, the leaders were able to sustain themselves while navigating the challenges of inclusion work. By persistently interweaving diversification and integration, the leaders reported beneficial employee outcomes, such as their feeling “supported,” “valued,” “comfortable speaking up,” and “being their true authentic selves.” As a result, employees would “open their minds,” “advocate for themselves and others,” “collaborate better,” “give you 100% rather than 30% of their work,” be “loyal,” “get things done,” “come up with creative strategy,” and produce “great products and services,” thus achieving “a win–win for all.” The leaders also shared that their inclusive efforts resulted in intrapersonal benefits, including a sense of “pride” in their work and being “at peace” with what they had accomplished. We wanted to note that while most participants navigated these tensions, it was not the case for all leaders. Some 432 W.Zheng et al. expressed fatigue and discouragement in their inclusive leadership work. For example, Kelly, a senior manager at a large pharmaceutical company, noted that practicing inclusion work was “hard” and at times made her feel “exhausted,” noting that “people don’t realize how much work goes into it…there’s no time off.” Similarly, Grace acknowledged that “it [addressing majority and minority concerns] was very frustrating—it’s like trying to do stuff for different groups, and then it kind of backfired on me… We’ve been able to accomplish a lot for [our colleagues], but they can be very unappreciative—they complain about everything.” These examples illustrate the stress and frustration that can accompany inclusive leadership practices. Discussion Our study reveals that practicing inclusive leadership triggers tensions between diversification and integration, which manifests in three specific pairs of practices: (1) diversifying and homogenizing: seeking out divergence among people and perspectives and seeking out similarities among people, (2) differentiating and equalizing: supporting marginalized members differently and supporting everyone equally, and (3) separating and connecting: separating people into subgroups and connecting people across subgroups. Leaders manage these tensions by using tensionspecific strategies such as seeking differences in parts while homogenizing the whole, differentiating between means of supporting individuals and goals of equalizing opportunities for everyone, reframing opposition into synergy (e.g., supporting marginalized individuals helps everyone), encouraging cross-group connections (e.g., encouraging people to join ERGs beyond their own identities), and leveraging superordinate structures to separate and connect people (e.g., forming subgroups and a council to connect subgroups). Theoretical Implications andFuture Research Directions. Our findings carry several theoretical implications. First, our empirical exploration of inclusive leadership practices sheds new light on our understanding of inclusive leadership. Specifically, our findings reveal that inclusive leadership practices, whose defining feature is to foster both belongingness and uniqueness between which tensions lie, may necessitate a balancing act of diversification and integration for leaders who aim to include everyone. Extending previous inductive findings of inclusive leadership from practitioner accounts that focus primarily on diversifying (e.g., encouraging and valuing diverse work styles and contributions, inviting disagreement and debate, and encouraging employees to voice their opinions and share feedback in different ways) (Roberson & Perry, 2021), our findings revealed a broader range of inclusive leadership behaviors that also focus on integrating as well as the tensions residing between diversifying and integrating. Our study also enriches the inclusive tensions theorized by scholars (Ferdman, 2017; Waldman & Sparr, 2022; Yang & Zheng, 2020) by shedding light on the manifestations of the tensions between diversification and integration in the lived experience of inclusive leaders. Specifically, leaders’ pursuing diversification can play out in three groups of behaviors: seeking diverse people and perspective, providing differentiated support to marginalized members, and creating separate subgroups. Correspondingly, pursuing integration manifests as leadership behaviors that seek similarities among people, provide equal support to everyone, and create connections across subgroups. Our specification of these leadership practices can aid further theoretical extension on the diversification–integration tension experience by inclusive leaders, especially in a diverse setting. For example, building on our findings, one direction researchers can pursue is to develop scales that capture the different aspects of diversification and integration, and test their co-occurrence in leaders who are perceived to demonstrate high, medium, or low inclusiveness. Such effort can help enrich our understanding of how and to what extent inclusive leadership behaviors associated with the diversification–integration tension may be universal or contingent on context. Further, our findings are in line with the separation of belongingness practices and uniqueness practices as Randel etal. (2018) conceptualized (e.g., belongingness practices include supporting individuals as group members, etc., and uniqueness practices included encouraging diverse contributions, etc.). We advance their thinking by connecting specific pairs of practices that address belongingness and uniqueness where tension may reside. By spotlighting the tensions and ways of managing them, our study calls attention to the interrelations of inclusive leadership practices and opens a whole new avenue for future research. For example, instead of investigating the additive effects of different inclusive leadership practices, future research can investigate how different sets of inclusive leadership practices may have multiplicative effects on individual, team, and organizational outcomes. Further, paradox research has revealed the inherent and persistence nature of tensions in paradoxes because both poles of a paradox need to be held on to in organizations (e.g., exploration and exploitation, social missions and business ventures, Knight & Harvey, 2015; Smith etal., 2013), which is reflected in the tensions between diversification and integration in inclusive leadership 433Every Rose Has Its Thorns- How Exemplars Manage theTensions inInclusive Leadership that we identify. Future research can draw insights from paradox management literature on how to handle tensions, such as using “either-or” (i.e., choosing only one of the two conflicting aspects, Smith & Lewis, 2011), “both-and” (i.e., treating opposites as inseparable and interdependent, Smith & Lewis, 2011), and “more-than” solutions (i.e., connecting oppositional pairs, moving outside of them, or situating them in a new relationship, Putnam etal., 2016). In our study, the strategy of differentiating between parts and whole, means and ends, and connecting across different subgroups reflect a “both-and” approach, and the reframing supporting marginalized groups as beneficial to everyone reflects a “more-than” approach. A line of future research can systematically explore the occurrence and impact of different approaches to managing tensions between diversification and integration as used by a wider range of leaders in varying organizational contexts. Such effort can enhance our understanding of how and why inclusive leadership practices are effective or not. Second, our theorizing provides a bridge between diversity and inclusive leadership. Nishii and Leroy (2022) argued that the social identities of followers shape their experience differentially and influence work group dynamics, which makes it necessary that inclusive leaders adapt to the particular needs of the group based on its compositional diversity and associated diversity dynamics. Our findings reinforce this perspective that social identities, as well as individual identities, factor into exemplary inclusive leaders’ deployment of behaviors and practices. This is in line with the existing literature that suggested that, while personal and social identities are indeed distinct aspects of an individual’s self-concept (Turner etal. 1987), they are closely intertwined, and social contexts and social identities can significantly shape individual identities (Turner etal., 1994). When individuals, especially those from marginalized groups, feel affirmed in their social identities, they are less likely to suppress these identities and instead engage in identity manifestation, which generates greater authenticity, psychological coherence, and wellbeing (Cha & Roberts, 2019; Jones & King, 2014). More specifically, we see a prominent theme in the leaders’ inclusive practices of managing divergent needs of people, especially those of dominant and marginalized groups that can differ substantially. Inclusive leadership fosters individual uniqueness, which takes into consideration not just individual-based differences, but also subgroup differences, as evidenced prominently in the separation theme (i.e., providing enclaves for marginalized individuals) and the differentiating theme (i.e., providing differential support to individuals, especially those from marginalized backgrounds). Our findings suggest a possible theoretical extension to inclusive leadership, to address uniqueness brought out by both individual identities and social identities. We see the co-mingling of social identities and individual identities in the leader’s inclusive practices, that is, the influence of social identities on individuals’ needs and leaders’ practices to address these needs. The existing conceptualizations of inclusion often emphasize individual identities and differences which may suggest leader neutrality that overlooks how individuals’ social positions shape their experiences (Nishii & Leroy, 2021). Thus, our findings highlight the importance of recognizing the potential influence of social identities on individuality as an important underlying dimension to inclusive leadership, especially in diverse settings. Future research can address questions such as, how leaders balance fostering individual uniqueness while acknowledging the collective impact of social identities, and what strategies inclusive leaders use to support both individual agency and social group-based belonging. Further, given the core of inclusive leadership in helping all people feel belongingness and uniqueness, inclusive leadership may involve more complex and adaptive behaviors than generic behaviors that are applied across individuals, groups, and contexts (Nishii & Leroy, 2022). In particular, our findings explicate three sets of such complex and adaptive behaviors: balancing diversifying and homogenizing, differentiating and equalizing, and separating and connecting. Where the balance point is for each set of behaviors may vary as a function of the group’s diversity composition, the leader’s own diversity profile, and the context. Our three sets of leadership behaviors provide theoretical tools for future researchers to construct, measure, and test the extent to which either pole of each pair of the behaviors gets more or less attention compared with the other, which may dial up or dial down individual and work group outcomes. Future theorizing can build on our specification of these behaviors to further explore the dynamism of inclusive leadership in groups of varying extent and dimension of diversity. Third, our study offers new insights into the inherent, persistent challenges of inclusive leadership, complementing our existing understanding of its positive potential. In our study, the leaders noted the unresolved contradictions and ambiguities related to the three tensions, acknowledging that not all problems had a clearcut solution. The practice of inclusive leadership is harrowing as it is rewarding. This may shed light on reasons why many leaders are perceived as not inclusive (e.g., focus on equality while ignoring disparities), and why some inclusive leaders experience pushback and fail to make headway in their organizations (e.g., focus on supporting disadvantaged members while neglecting to emphasize equal support to everyone), ultimately burning out and leaving the role completely. In fact, many of the DEI roles have disappeared three years after George Floyd’s murder that inspired them, and more are experiencing reductions or complete 434 W.Zheng et al. eliminations amidst political targeting of DEI efforts (Sommer, 2025). The exemplars in our study point towards how leaders are able to stay the course without wavering or burning out in the face of constant setbacks and challenges. Future research into the perils of inclusive leadership may be fruitful to shed light on leader derailment and success indicators for inclusive leaders. Relatedly, the meta-strategies leaders use, the strategies of accepting the impossibility of pleasing everyone and focusing on learning and progress over ideal outcomes, relate to the learning and integration perspective in Ely and Thomas (2001). Ely and Thomas (2001) posited that diversity can drive learning, innovation, and organizational success when organizations encourage ongoing learning and adaptability. The leaders’ focus on continuous growth over immediate outcomes in our study parallels the integration and learning perspective’s focus on leveraging diversity as a dynamic process rather than a fixed state. These meta-strategies may form the micro-foundation of what Ely and Thomas (2001) articulated at the organizational level. Future research could further explore how such leader strategies may influence inclusive culture and outcomes at the organizational level. Lastly, in the broader context of business ethics, our findings spotlight empirical evidence of not only the triumphs but also tribulations, that is, the stress, frustration, and barriers to inclusive leadership. This deepens our understanding of the potential emotional costs and stress that practicing ethical leadership can potentially incur in organizations that business ethics scholars have been calling for (e.g., Den Hartog, as cited in Palanski etal., 2021). Future research can further explore the coping mechanisms and resiliencebuilding strategies used by leaders who face challenges in fostering inclusivity, the role of organizational support systems (e.g., coaching, mentorship, or mental health resources) in mitigating leadership stress, and how leadership development programs can prepare leaders for the complex demands of inclusive leadership. Practical Implications Our tension-based perspective alerts leaders of the potential obstacles lying in the path of inclusive leadership, which can bring beneficial outcomes but also elicit burnout and exhaustion. From this perspective, inclusive leadership is a dynamic process of adjusting and responding to differing and sometimes conflictual needs of different groups of employees, through diversifying and homogenizing, differentiating and equalizing, and separating and connecting. Given the dual goals of belongingness and uniqueness, leaders’ efforts at balancing these practices may be perpetual and require deliberate acts of tension management to ensure responses that address divergent, and sometimes conflictual, needs. For leadership development professionals, it is imperative to cultivate in leaders a mindset that embraces tensions and contradictions. It is equally crucial to foster leaders’ particular skillsets to fuse seemingly opposite practices, such as skills to frame inclusion as the coexistence of divergence and similarities, communicate why leader support is differentiated but equitable, and how to encourage subgroups and cross-group interactions simultaneously. Additionally, the meta-strategies of acknowledging the impossibility to fully meet everyone’s needs all the time, focusing on learning and progress over ideal outcomes, and emphasizing controllable processes over uncontrollable results, can be also helpful for leaders. With these meta-strategies, they can adopt a learning and long-term frame when confronted with conflicting demands, which can release stress and foster sustainable engagement of leaders. Limitations andFuture Directions forResearch We address our study’s limitations and suggest directions for future research. First, given the inductive nature of our work, the tensions in inclusive leadership practices we identified from exemplars may not generalize to all leaders who attempt to practice inclusion. It may be helpful to develop a scale of inclusive leadership practices based on our findings of the three pairs of practices to compare the extent to which they are used, and the demographic and cultural contexts in which they are used. Leaders’ usage of these practices may be further examined in their impact on direct reports’ work and life outcomes. Second, our work focused on leaders in different industries and may not have highlighted how certain leadership practices can differ across industries, such as in STEM industries that are more male-dominated compared to industries such as counseling or education that are more female-dominated. Indeed, this was illustrated in the lack of a uniform definition of inclusive leadership in the award criteria across the different awarding organizations. Future research may wish to explore this by examining what employees look for in inclusive leaders and whether this varies across industries, while also examining organization related questions, such as how organizational cues can amplify or hinder inclusive practices. Lastly, in our interviews, we did not provide a definition of inclusive leadership, choosing instead to allow our participants to define what inclusive leadership meant to them. Though this allowed for the emergence of various inclusive leadership practices, the lack of a uniform definition, which is also reflected in the current inclusive leadership literature, does pose a challenge for developing a scale measuring inclusive leadership practices. Future research can explore the definition of inclusive leadership practices for leaders and their followers, which can inform how divergent definitions may associate with different leadership practices and follower experiences and outcomes. 435Every Rose Has Its Thorns- How Exemplars Manage theTensions inInclusive Leadership Conclusion Our study challenges an overly optimistic picture of inclusive leadership by revealing the tensions and pushbacks associated with inclusive leadership practices. Our findings suggest that inclusive leadership consists of managing the tensions arising from practices of diversification and integration that jointly contribute to organizational members’ experience of belongingness and uniqueness. We offer a novel perspective on inclusive leadership, not as a set of static practices, but as the management of dynamic, tension-filled practices that celebrate diverse people and perspectives while seeking similarities to rally members, that adapt support to different needs while ensuring support for everyone, and that provide comfortable enclaves for similar people while connecting dissimilar people across subgroups. By holding onto both ends of the tensions, leaders can create a sustainable space for people to feel respected, valued, and supported. Appendix A Interview Protocol Background Questions 1. Could you tell me about your current role? 2. In what ways is your organization diverse and not diverse? 3. Could you tell me about your demographic background? Questions onInclusive Leadership 4. What have you been doing to cultivate an inclusive environment in your organization? 5. How do you know your unit or organization is inclusive? How do you gauge the inclusiveness of your unit or organization? 6. What do you do to help your organizational members feel that they belong in the organization? Could you give a couple of examples? 7. What do you do to help your organizational members feel that they don’t need to hide their differences from others and can bring their authentic selves to work? Could you give a couple of examples? Questions onChallenges ofInclusive Leadership 8. What are some tensions and challenges you have experienced when leading in an inclusive way? What have helped you meet these challenges? 9. Have you experienced pushback from majority members on the initiatives that provide more or different support to minority members? If so, what are they and how have you dealt with them? Could you give an example? 10. Have you experienced demands or complaints from minority members that your unit or organization has not done enough to support them? If so, what are they and how have you dealt with them? Could you give an example? 11. How do you address the needs of both majority and minority members? 12. Why do some leaders not practice inclusive leadership? What makes it difficult to be an inclusive leader? 13. What factors in your environment help you practice inclusive leadership? 14. What factors in your environment hinder your practice of inclusive leadership? Acknowledgement We sincerely thank the exemplary leaders who generously shared their experiences and insights, which have been invaluable to this research. We are also grateful for the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided by the editor and reviewers throughout the review process. Declarations Conflict of interest No conflict of interest. Research Involving Human and Animal Participants Stevens Institute of Technology IRB approval number: 2022–046 (N). Informed Consent Stevens Institute of Technology IRB approval number: 2022–046 (N). Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Amis, J. M., Mair, J., & Munir, K. A. (2020). The organizational reproduction of inequality. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 195–230. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ annals. 2017. 0033 Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). The self in social contexts. Annual ReView of Psychology, 45(1), 297–332. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. ps. 45. 020194. 001501 436 W.Zheng et al. Bernstein, R. S., Bulger, M., Salipante, P., & Weisinger, J. Y. (2020). From diversity to inclusion to equity: A theory of generative interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), 395–410. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055101904180-1 Bettencourt, B. A., Molix, L., Talley, A. E., & Sheldon, K. M. (2006). Psychological need satisfaction through social roles. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten, individuality and the group: advances in social identity (pp. 196–214). SAGE Publications Ltd. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4135/ 97814 46211 946. n11 Bourke, J. (2018). The diversity and inclusion revolution: Eight powerful truths. Deloitte Insights. https:// www2. deloi tte. com/ us/ en/ insig hts/ deloi ttere view/ issue22/ div er sityandinclu sionatworkeightpower fultruths. html Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67291 175001 Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00223514. 71.1. 83 Bronk, K. C., King, P. E., & Matsuba, M. K. (2013). An introduction to exemplar research: A definition, rationale, and conceptual issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2013(142), 1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ cad. 20045 Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & 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), 250–260. h ttps:// doi . org/ 10. 1080/ 10400 419. 2010. 504654 Cha, S. E., & Roberts, L. M. (2019). Leveraging minority identities at work: An individual-level framework of the identity mobilization process. Organization Science, 30(4), 735–760. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2018. 1272 Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13505 07600 314007 DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 473–501. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. soc. 33. 040406. 131805 Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of highstatus groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 58–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jesp. 2015. 10. 006 Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 26670 87 Emerson, K. T., & Murphy, M. C. (2014). Identity threat at work: How social identity threat and situational cues contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in the workplace. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(4), 508. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0035 403 Ferdman, B. M. (2017). Paradoxes of inclusion: Understanding and managing the tensions of diversity and multiculturalism. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2), 235–263. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86317 702608 Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. (2014). Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. John Wiley & Sons. Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 259263 Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28112 452151 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction Publishers. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 7957P SPR05 03_1 Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 248–264. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 7957p spr08 03_2 Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., Van Der Zee, K. I., & Jans, L. (2014). Inclusion: Conceptualization and measurement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 370–385. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 2011 Jin, M., Lee, J., & Lee, M. (2017). Does leadership matter in diversity management? Assessing the relative impact of diversity policy and inclusive leadership in the public sector. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(2), 303–319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ LODJ0720150151 Jones, K. P., & King, E. B. (2014). Managing concealable stigmas at work: A review and multilevel model. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1466–1494. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06313 515518 Jonsen, K., Levy, O., Toegel, I., & Van Zanten, J. (2020). The role of inclusion in responsible global leadership. In Responsible Global Leadership (pp. 120–136). Routledge. Knight, E., & Harvey, W. (2015). Managing exploration and exploitation paradoxes in creative organizations. Management Decision, 53(4), 809–827. https:// ssrn. com/ abstr act= 24988 91 Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 787– 820. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 256746 Konrad, A. M., Richard, O. C., & Yang, Y. (2021). Both diversity and meritocracy: Managing the diversity-meritocracy paradox with organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 58(8), 2180–2206. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joms. 12752 Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 259377 Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 63–113). Elsevier. https:// www. scien cedir ect. com/ scien ce/ artic le/ pii/ S0065 26011 04300 26 Leslie, L. M. (2019). Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 538–563. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2017. 0087 Li, X., & Peng, P. (2022). How does inclusive leadership curb workers’ emotional exhaustion? The mediation of caring ethical climate and psychological safety. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 877725. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2022. 877725 McCluney, C. L., & Rabelo, V. C. (2019). Conditions of visibility: An intersectional examination of Black women’s belongingness and distinctiveness at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 143–152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2018. 09. 008 Mor Barak, M. E., Luria, G., & Brimhall, K. C. (2022). What leaders say versus what they do: Inclusive leadership, policy-practice decoupling, and the anomaly of climate for inclusion. Group & Organization Management, 47(4), 840–871. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10596 01121 10059 16 437Every Rose Has Its Thorns- How Exemplars Manage theTensions inInclusive Leadership Mor-Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in Social Work, 22(1), 47–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J147v 22n01_ 04 Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879–885. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 14679280. 2007. 01995.x Nembhard, I. M., & 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), 941–966. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 413 Nishii, L. H., & Leroy, H. L. (2021). Inclusive leadership: Leaders as architects of inclusive workgroup climates. In Inclusive leadership: Transforming diverse lives, workplaces, and societies (pp. 162–178). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97804 29449 67312 Nishii, L. H., & Leroy, H. (2022). A multi-level framework of inclusive leadership in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 47(4), 683–722. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10596 01122 11115 05 O’Leary, B. J., & Weathington, B. L. (2006). Beyond the business case for diversity in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18(4), 283–292. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s106720069024-9 Palanski, M., Newman, A., Leroy, H., Moore, C., Hannah, S., & Den Hartog, D. (2021). Quantitative research on leadership and business ethics: Examining the state of the field and an agenda for future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(1), 109–119. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055101904267-9 Panicker, A., Agrawal, R. K., & Khandelwal, U. (2017). Contentious but not optional: Linking inclusive workplace to organizational outcomes. A Management Journal, 8(2), 14–28. Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 337. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0022 832 Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., Hurd, K., & Romano, C. A. (2018). Do color blindness and multiculturalism remedy or foster discrimination and racism? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 200–206. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09637 21418 766068 Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615–630. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00223514. 94.4. 615 Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19416 520. 2016. 11624 21 Qi, L., & Liu, B. (2017). Effects of inclusive leadership on employee voice behavior and team performance: The mediating role of caring ethical climate. Frontiers in Communication, 2, 8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fcomm. 2017. 00008 Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. hrmr. 2017. 07. 002 Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10596 01104 273064 Roberson, Q., & Perry, J. L. (2021). Inclusive leadership in thought and action: A thematic analysis. Group & Organization Management, 47(4), 755–788. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10596 01121 10131 61 Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse organizational settings. The Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 685–711. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2005. 18378 873 Schneid, R. (2025, February 22). U.S. companies scaling back DEI efforts as Trump targets initiatives. Time. https:// time. com/ 72606 89/ uscompa niesscali ngbackdeieffor tstr umptarge tsiniti atives/ Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06310 385943 Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. hrmr. 2017. 07. 003 Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2009. 0223 Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing socialbusiness tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ ambpp. 2013. 187 Sommer, J. (2025, February 21). D.E.I. comes and goes. Profits are forever. The New York Times. https:// www. nytim es. com/ 2025/ 02/ 21/ busin ess/ profi tsdeimiltonfried man. html Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037// 00223514. 69.5. 797 The White House. (2025). Executive order: Ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing. https:// www. white house. go v/ presi denti alactio ns/ 2025/ 01/ endingradic alandwaste fulgover nmentdeiprogr amsandprefe renci ng/ Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 454–463. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67294 205002 Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell. US Department of Education. (2025). U.S. Department of Education takes action to eliminate DEI. http:// www. ed. gov/ about/ news/ pressrelea se/ usdepar tmentofeduca tiontakesactionelimi natedei Waldman, D. A., & Sparr, J. L. (2022). Rethinking diversity strategies: An application of paradox and positive organization behavior theories. Academy of Management Perspectives, 37(2), 174–192. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amp. 2021. 0183 Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Mazei, J., & Morner, M. (2017). The paradox of diversity initiatives: When organizational needs differ from employee preferences. Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 33–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510152864-1 Yang, Y., & Zheng, W 2020. Three pillars of inclusive leadership: A paradox approach. Academy of Management 2020 Annual Conference, Virtual Presentation. Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.