Search results

Diversification of faculty within higher education has been a topic of focus within the academy for decades. Further, there has been a call to create academic departments composed of faculty teams which are more representative of gender, racial, and ethnic diversity, often with the ideal of representing student and community demographics. Though challenges remain in recruiting, hiring, and retaining diverse faculty, higher education institutions (HEIs) rarely represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the communities that they serve, and benchmarks or definitions of success have been vague at best. However, evidence does support the notion that both student and community outcomes are strengthened by the skills, talents, perspectives, and contributions offered by diverse faculty and leadership teams. First, a review of the current obstacles and challenges of creating diverse and inclusive faculty teams is covered. Second, the Five I’s of Inclusive Leadership Practices in Higher Education, lessons and successes from building diverse and representative faculty teams are shared. This model includes Intentionality, Invitation, Influence, Investment, and Innovation. Finally, recommendations for future practice, as well as application across institutional type, setting, and location, are included. Building diverse and inclusive faculty teams is important, urgent, and rewarding work. Diversification gives birth to lively classroom conversations, thriving campus environments, enhanced growth in the personal and professional lives of students and faculty, establishment of equitable and affirming cross-racial and gender relationships, population and financial growth of the HEI, and more equitable service to communities.

In this chapter, I present a concept named Diversity Icebreaker® where the participants in a seminar are categorized along red, blue, and green dimensions based on a psychological assessment. The participants co-create the meaning of the dimensions in mono-colored groups due to their dominant scores where they describe themselves and others from inside and outside perspectives. Blue is more task and detail oriented. Green is more holistic and future oriented. Red is more social and communicative oriented. The language as a metaphorical structure as well as the seminar builds a culture of inclusivity. The simplicity and easiness of mastery of the categories make it easy for everyone to apply the categories. The social co-creation of the categories makes every participant at an even level. The colors are defined reciprocally strengthening the needs of the others. Everyone has all colors which makes it easier to connect and see commonalities that build cohesion. In the seminar, participants experience uncertainty followed by dialogues with others. Positive emotions and insight reinforce the script of “dialoguing with others when uncertainties arise.” The positivity and humor in the seminar reinforce the behavior of being together. The closure is a collective reflexivity process where all participants have even possibility to contribute due to their unique perspectives on their shared experience. I end this chapter with reflections and questions on leadership models in this seminar that has evolved in a Norwegian context and their relevance in a global context.

In this chapter, the author argues that in order to meet the United Nations’ sustainable development goal 4 which calls for education to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all by 2030,” transformative leadership may be key. Transformative leadership goes well beyond traditional technical and rational approaches to leadership; it includes but extends theories such as social justice leadership and transformational leadership and involves two general principles and eight interconnected tenets. These include knowing oneself, one’s community and organization; deconstructing frameworks that perpetuate inequity and reconstructing them in more equitable ways; addressing the inequitable distribution of power; emphasizing individual and collective good; focusing on democracy emancipation, equity, and justice as well as interconnectedness and global awareness; and offering both critique and promise. Transformative leadership theory is a critical, holistic, and normative approach that focuses on values, and on beliefs and mindsets as well as knowledge and action. It is characterized by its activist agenda and its overriding commitment to social justice, equity, and democratic society. Thus, it is an approach to leadership that is anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-xenophobic, etc.; it calls for rejection of deficit thinking and for inclusive and equitable practices that require moral courage. It is such a holistic and critical theory that would help to promote the United Nations’ education goal by the target of 2030.

People who are “othered” confront an epistemic injustice that silences and discards their knowledge. Rather than being actors in their own future, people in positions of authority dictate prescriptive procedures, removing marginalized individuals – and often the communities that care about them – from participating in what could be real and sustainable solutions to harmful social conditions. These injustices create us/them narratives, which can become social landmines that may explode under pressure. Restorative practices prize shared learning and decision-making to harness collective energies around a common purpose to repair relationships. Dialogue facilitated in a circle format ritualizes acts of inclusion and utilizes the power of followership – those without formal authority – to create a shared understanding. Revealing complexities beyond a myopic us/them perspective expands cognitive empathy and refocuses participants on unmet needs to help defuse social landmines. This chapter illustrates three inclusive circle processes that can be employed to uphold human dignity by affirming belonging within a diverse community and honoring all people’s voice and agency. Dialogue circles respond to the injustice of being othered by granting people the right to interpret their own lives. In Detroit, Guatemala, and Singapore, facilitated circles create space for reciprocal storytelling and foster social connections among neighbors, police, and migrants. Most significantly, people become stewards of their future, not problems to be managed, kindling life-affirming resolve collectively supported within their communities.

This chapter is a conversation between the three authors, an Indigenous person, a multigenerational White settler, and a White immigrant, about how equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) connects with the history and pervasive practices of colonialism, White supremacy, and embedded racism, and what might be done to create a new future that is individually and collectively just. EDI has become increasingly embraced by organizations and governments to overcome bias, to increase representation of underrepresented groups, and to revise discriminatory policies across almost all areas of intersectionality. But EDI has no answers for the issues of Indigenous reconciliation and decolonization that seem to exist in a parallel world. A deeper understanding is needed about the individual rights roots of “equity,” as well as knowledge of Indigenous history, since Indigenous communities are not simply additional cultural groups in Canada. The British Royal Proclamation of 1763 initially codified a “nation to nation” relationship, but subsequent broken treaties, and the 1876 Indian Act, imposed a White supremist relationship on Indigenous populations, stole lands, and attempted to eliminate traditional cultures. Since 1970, Indigenous organizations have sought a “citizenship plus” relationship with Canadian federal and provincial governments, a direction supported by more recent court decisions. This chapter includes examples of how these ideas have been applied by some organizations and concludes with a model for developing personal stamina and resilience for learning, reconsidering, and interacting with others about identity issues given the complexities of personal learning and system change.

On September 16, 2022, Mahsa a 22-year-old Kurdish girl was killed in Tehran by so-called morality police due to wearing her hijab improperly. After that, thousands of Iranians, led mainly by Gen Z women, poured into the streets protesting the Islamic Republic’s police actions. Named after the protesters’ main rally cry, the Woman, Life, Freedom (WLF) movement swept across Iran very soon and covered other aspects of Iranians’ frustration with the government. The rallies have been confronted with a violent crackdown by the regime, which denied all the accusations and blamed Western countries for sponsoring the protesters. In the lack of dialogic space, Iranians have created their own spaces of autonomy. Calling these spaces the third spaces of engagement, the authors shed light on the protesters’ disruptive daily activities on social media as well as physical spaces as leadership activities through the lens of leadership-as-practice theory. This chapter reframes the issue of hijab as an issue of authority which WLF as a youth-led movement is challenging. Observing protesters’ practices via video clips, news, photos, and social media posts, the authors give an analysis of the movement’s practices based on Harro’s cycle of liberation. The authors argue that while the movement made a huge breakthrough in building a public community around its main slogan, it is suffering from a lack of unity and inclusive collaborative dialogue. Finally, the authors offer suggestions for the movement’s future actions.

The study of power is essential to any study of leadership, as power is fundamental to human organization and is understood to be a driving force of leadership. Power is typically thought of in terms of having dominance over others from a hierarchically higher position. In this chapter, we explore how power is typically defined in the literature and propose that mutualism represents an expanded definition of power and one that more closely aligns with the concept of inclusive leadership. We make a case for viewing power as a capacity that can be developed in others rather than a commodity that can be obtained, horded, or doled out. With this in mind, we explore how these two phenomena intersect from the perspectives of powerdistance, hierarchy, and empowerment. We argue that power expressed as dominance creates distance between leaders and employees, while mutualistic expressions reduce such distance, and that hierarchy and power have been erroneously conflated and when disaggregated can serve a useful purpose in a low-power-distance culture. Finally, through empowerment, we consider approaches to the development of power in others, which is a topic that is rarely considered in the leadership literature. Inclusive leadership offers an important pathway for moving organizations and society toward justice through the creation of cultures characterized by cooperation, unity, and diversity where greater numbers of people step into their capacity for power and begin to address the challenges facing humanity. This is realizable in cultures that promote mutualistic power.

While diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) in the workplace means making space for all employees, it has unique implications for Indigenous employees who live and work in countries built on colonialism. Indigenous peoples represent diverse groups with unique and rich cultures that in general share values that are more holistic, spiritual, traditional, egalitarian, and other-oriented than non-Indigenous populations. Such distinct worldviews help explain why non-Indigenous organizations struggle to understand and accommodate Indigenous employees’ priorities and goal-oriented behavior. Creating equity, inclusivity, and belonging in the workplace for Indigenous employees requires more than implementing existing organizational practices with a new cultural awareness, it requires rethinking, reframing, and recreating organizational to facilitate a culture of trust. Re-examining organizational norms and assumptions with the ideas of relationship and responsibility that allow collaborative approaches to collective well-being and inclusivity is required. Creating inclusive workspaces requires that attention must be paid to both organizational (group-level) factors, such as organizational cultures of trust, and interpersonal (individual-level) factors, such as interpersonal trust. However, to build foundations of high-functioning and supportive organizational cultures and interpersonal trust that are sustainable, time and resources are necessary. Without this, the ability to reach the crucial result of engaging Indigenous employees and creating safe workplaces serves only to be performative and not meaningful in terms of action, longevity, and the overall well-being of Indigenous people in the workplace.

Historically, learners labeled with disabilities have been denied equal access to and opportunities in mainstream classrooms. Globally, the task of addressing marginalization entails two main approaches. Firstly, there is a need to prevent stigmatization, discrimination, and neglect. Secondly, efforts must be directed toward establishing structures and systems that enable complete and meaningful involvement within educational institutions and various sectors. Educational inequality is associated with various aspects of identity beyond disability status. Factors such as culture, language, race, and gender impact the classroom experiences of children. Consequently, schools must adopt an intersectional approach in their quest to deliver effective, accessible, and inclusive education to all children. Building from the work of UNESCO, we define inclusivity as a transformative process of educators ensuring that all children experience high-quality learning opportunities that respect and value multiple dimensions of diversity. This chapter describes an emerging research–practice partnership focused on organizational learning advancing inclusivity. The partnership is premised on supporting central office administrators and the school-based inclusion planning teams (IPTs) in a public school district implementing a comprehensive reform of their service delivery model for students labeled with disabilities. It involves supporting administrators in Boston Public Schools (BPS) in fine-tuning a theory of action (ToA), designing organizational learning processes to enact this ToA, and evaluating the efficacy of the initiative in advancing effective, inclusive education for students labeled with disabilities.

Groups once marginalized by culture, ethnicity, class, sexuality, age, and physical ability have entered and impacted business, service, and educational institutions. To unify their widening communities, leaders must pursue inclusivity, which demands more than equitable demographics. Inclusivity integrates each individual’s perspective, regardless of group – the tougher goal of equitable belonging. Most diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging programs agree that inclusivity starts with leaders’ acknowledging their own biases and committing to organizational reform. Yet few apply leadership principles to gain crucial team collaboration in the project. This chapter explicitly shows public- and private-sector executives and instructors how to guide staffers and students to understand and welcome unfamiliar cultural, social, and personal variances so they themselves create an inclusive cohort. Experiential activities, games, performance arts, and focused, reflective debriefings help make inclusivity the norm by playfully but persistently uncovering even unconscious exclusionist assumptions and replacing them with informed, diversity-positive interactions. These emotionally engaging exercises reveal that exclusionism emerges most bluntly in casual conversation, which both displays and perpetuates preconceptions. Fortunately, self-corrected speech can become the avatar and instrument of inclusivity. So the gentle unearthing and disproving of biases about cultural, social, and personal differences allow participants to construct a diversity-enhanced unity deeper than uniformity. Albeit temporary and simulated, such visceral learning experiences dramatically immerse players in the hurtful disregard caused by microaggressions of privilege and prejudice about cultures, ethnicities, classes, sexualities, ages, and abilities. These exercises and leaders’ modeling grow collegiality despite – indeed, through – human variety, letting all celebrate their individuality while greeting new views and voices.