          

CIL Working Papers
No.2021-01
Inclusive Leadership Education in a Multicultural Educational
Setting: A Review of Conceptual Models, Practices andMeasurements

April 2021
KIMURA Rikio
Center for Inclusive Leadership© Copyright 2021 KIMURA Rikio
Professor, College of Asia Pacific Studies, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

Inclusive Leadership Education in a Multicultural Educational Setting:
A Review of Conceptual Models, Practices and Measurements
Rikio Kimura *Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
Kimie Shin
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
Miki Cutting
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
Faezeh Mahichi
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

Abstract
The concept of inclusive leadership is not prevalent in the education field of pedagogy despite arenewed emphasis on diversity literature due to increasing diversity issues around the world. In
this review paper, by utilizing the richer inclusive leadership literature in organizational studies,
we carefully connect it to the related extant literature on education such as multicultural group
work and intercultural competence measurements, in order to identify inclusive leadershipeducation practices in multicultural educational settings and develop a measurement for those.
We identified some similarities between organizational inclusion practices, which resonate with
Shore et al.’s (2011) belongingness and uniqueness, and educational inclusion practices. We also
found that extant inclusive leadership measurements are not sufficient to capture and measure
students’ inclusive leadership development in multicultural educational settings and point out adirection toward a sounder measurement.
Keywords: inclusive leadership, inclusion, diversity, multicultural education, multicultural group
work, intercultural competence, measurement

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Center for Inclusive Leadership of Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific
University under the Pedagogy Research and Event Subsidy.

*

Corresponding author; Email: rkimura@apu.ac.jp

Inclusion Criteria and Outline of Paper
We searched the Web of Science using “inclusive leader*” as a keyword through scholarly
articles published between 1990 and 2021. As of March 2021, there were 157 hits. The
breakdown in the fields of studies of these articles are: management (55); education andeducational research (33); multidisciplinary psychology (14); and business (13). So, the majorityof research on inclusive leadership is done in the field of organizational studies, namely
management and business. We further investigated the articles in the field of education andeducational research and found the following breakdown in its sub-fields: school leadership (22);pedagogy for inclusive leadership (all the levels of formal education) (4); professional and adulttraining (2); inclusive leadership and diversity in the society (3); diversity at school (1); andassessment (1). As seen, the concept of inclusive leadership is not prevalent in the sub-field of
pedagogy for inclusive leadership, although Portella (2011) points out the importance ofinclusive leadership in education.
Hence, in this review paper, by tapping on the richer inclusive leadership literature inorganizational studies, we will carefully bring that to bear upon the relevant extant literature on
education such as multicultural group work and intercultural competence measurements, in order
to identify inclusive leadership education practices in multicultural educational settings anddevelop a measurement for those. Thus, our literature inclusion criteria are: (a) the conceptualand theoretical framework of inclusive leadership from organizational studies; (b) inclusive
leadership development practices in higher education; and (c) inclusive leadershipmeasurements.
More specifically, this paper will begin with the definition and conceptual framework ofinclusive leadership, then unpack the related literature on workplace diversity/inclusiveness.
After that, we will review the literature on diversity/inclusiveness in higher education,
particularly that in multicultural group work. Finally, we will show the current state of inclusive
leadership measurements and indicate the direction towards a measurement in multicultural
educational settings.

Definition and Conceptual Framework of Inclusive Leadership
Shore et al. (2011) have defined inclusion as “the degree to which an employee perceives that heor she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies
his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness” that explicitly focuses on both belongingness
and uniqueness. The recent systematic literature review in inclusive leadership studies conductedby Thompson and Matkin (2019) indicates that the first cogent inclusion framework wasdeveloped by Shore et al. (2011). The Shore’s inclusion framework is built on the optimal
distinctiveness theory (ODT) of Brewer (1991) which is an extension of the social identity
theory. ODT asserts that tensions within individuals which originate from the need for validation

and similarity to the others in a group and a countervailing need for uniqueness andindividuation. Brewer argued that individuals seek to balance these two needs through an optimallevel of inclusion in the groups to which they belong. Shore’s inclusion framework is based on
the concept that people want to feel a sense of belonging, as well as feeling valued, for theirunique attributes and will put effort into balancing between these two senses; belongingness anduniqueness.

Workplace Diversity/InclusivenessAs stated, the majority of inclusive leadership literature rests on organizational studies, whose
emergence matches a renewed emphasis on diversity literature because of increasing diversity
issues around the world (Thompson and Matkin, 2020). Therefore, we will touch on the diversity
literature from organizational studies.

Surface-level Diversity and Deep-level Diversity
There are different dimensions in group diversity. Surface-level diversity is heterogeneity amonggroup members in terms of their explicit biological and demographic attributes, including age,sex, and race (Ely, 2004). It may include language abilities or accents in multinational groups.
On the other hand, deep-level diversity is heterogeneity among group members in terms of theirimplicit attributes including their personalities, values, and attitudes (ibid). These may be deeply
influenced by nationalities in multicultural groups.
In long-term groups, the influence of social categories deriving from superficial-level diversity inracial, sexual and linguistic attributes is likely to diminish over time, as group members pay
more attention to deep-level diversity in attitudes and values, resulting in less stereotyping by
overt social categories (Ely, 2004; Harrison et al., 2002). On the other hand, and particularly forshort-term groups, group members can be blinded by superficial-level diversity and thus are lesslikely to engage in group tasks by taking advantage of deeper differences in personality, values
and attitudes (Joshi & Roh, 2009; ᯘ⚈ᖹ et al., 2019) or the uniqueness of group members(Shore et al., 2011). For this kind of situation in particular, organizational interventions or what
Sabbarwal (2014) called organizational inclusive behaviors (OIB) is called for.
Organizational Inclusive Behaviors
Sabbarwal’s (2014) study reveals that organizational inclusive behaviors (OIB), which include(a) ability to influence work group decisions; (b) fairness/equitable treatment; and (c)commitment from top leadership to foster inclusion, promote organizational inclusion. Ely andThomas (2020) also concur with the finding that enabling organizational members to influencegroup decisions fosters organizational inclusion and elaborate that such an environment: “having
the power to help set the agenda, influence what—and how—work is done, have one’s needs andinterests taken into account, and have one’s contributions recognized and rewarded with further
opportunities to contribute and advance” (p. 117), which resonates with Shore et al.’s (2011)
uniqueness.
Allport (1954) and Elly and Thomas (2020) support Sabbarwal’s (2014) finding where
fairness/equitable treatment fosters organizational inclusion. From the viewpoint of intergrouprelationships, Allport (1954) states that the attitudinal transformation between groups can happen
by minimizing their status differences. In a similar vein, Ely and Thomas (2020) point out thatorganizations can take advantage of diversity by reducing discrimination and subordination,
accepting the different approaches of diverse organizational members, and making use ofcultural differences for learning and improving organizational practices. This too has an affinity
with Shore et al.’s (2011) uniqueness.
Finally, the extant literature also supports Sabbarwal’s (2014) finding where commitment fromtop leadership fosters organizational inclusion. For example, Allport (1954) argues that support
from authorities improves intergroup relationships. Also, leaders’ beliefs in diversity are
manifested in their actual behaviors, thereby influencing followers (Homan & Jehn, 2010; ㇂ཱྀ┿⨾, 2016).
Other than what have been mentioned, pertinent to OID is Ely and Thomas’ (2020) mention, in
which leaders need to build trust among followers by creating a psychologically safe workplace
where they can express themselves freely, echoing Shore et al’s (2011) belongingness. Also
related to OID is to create opportunities that facilitate work group members to reflect on anddiscuss group performance (ibid.).

Diversity/Inclusiveness in Higher Education
The conceptual framework by Shore et al. (2011) and the findings from organizational studies
have an affinity with the higher education context, particularly inclusiveness/diversity inmulticultural group work.

International Students in Multicultural Group Work
The insufficient language skills of international students in English-based courses in universities
in the west and their cultural and academic cultural backgrounds form their stereotypical views
as deficits and a problem (Popov et al., 2012; Safipour et al., 2017). More specifically, domestic
students view them as free-riders, not communicating properly, lacking motivation, ignorant, andpassive learners (ibid.). Popov et al. (2012) find that students’ cultural backgrounds—whether
they come from individualist or collectivist cultures—affect how they perceive and perform ingroup work. Students from individualist cultures are likely to pursue personal goals (of, forexample, getting things done efficiently), while those from collectivist cultures are likely to try toachieve collective goals (of, for instance, not disturbing group harmony) (ibid.). Through asystemic review, Safipour et al. (2017) identify that students’ academic cultural backgrounds
influence their approaches to learning. For example, if students come from that of a teachercentered education, they tend to be good listeners and can be perceived as someone who lacks
motivation by domestic students (ibid.). Popov et al. (2012) and Sapifour et al. (2017) argue thatthe lack of knowledge about the existence of different cultural practices and different
pedagogical practices can partly explain domestic students’ negative stereotypes towards
international students. On the other hand, a study by Poort et al. (2020) reveals that cultural
diversity in groups promotes students’ engagement in group work to some extent, as
multicultural group work requires or induces more efforts because of difficulties andcomplexities entailed by it.

Equalizing RelationshipAs highlighted above, the deficit perception surrounding international students in English-based
courses in universities in the west, in which they are considered deficient in English language
abilities as well as in the sense that they do not communicate properly, seem less motivated andappear to be free-riders, has been prevalent (Popov et al., 2012; Safipour et al., 2017; Shevellar,2015). This deficit perception is also applicable to Japanese students with weak English abilities
who are in English-based courses in increasingly internationalized universities in Japan and thus
need to interact with international students with stronger English abilities there. Here both
Shevellar (2015) and Cruickshank et al. (2012) suggest enabling them to enact the role of experts
and bearers of resources rather than bearers of problems in multicultural classrooms and group
work, by creating a safe and ‘third space’ for them to tell their stories. Such stories can be about,for example, their home country’s cultural practices and social issues that they are familiar withand relevant to the courses they take (for example, environmental issues of their home countries
in an environmental studies course). Here a student-centered learning approach, such as Think,
Pair and Share, can be utilized to gradually increase their confidence and capacities to tell andshare their stories in English (Cruickshank et al., 2012; Shevellar, 2015). Equalizing therelationship between those with power and those without power is critical for multicultural group
work where the powerful should neither dominate nor segregate the powerless, the powerlessfeel included, and their differences/uniqueness are valued and appreciated, which echoes
fairness/equal treatment in OIB by Sabbarwal (2014). For this to happen, Arkoudis et al. (2010),
Popov et al. (2012) and Yefanova et al. (2017) indicate the importance of holding a peer learning
workshop to learn such skills as facilitation, especially for soliciting the voices of minority
students with weak English abilities.

Strategies for Effective Multicultural Group Work

According to Poort et al. (2020), trust in the group is the strongest factor in students’ engagementin group work in comparison with group diversity in the group and group formation, which has
an affinity with Ely and Thomas’s (2020) finding of the importance of building trust among
followers from organizational studies. For this to happen, Poort et al. (2020) and Arkuoudis et al.
(2010) suggest trust-building or ice-breaking activities at the earlier stage of group work.
Particularly for multicultural groups, this can be activities that help students acknowledge
cultural diversity in the group and formulate group specific cross-cultural communication
protocols (Popov et al., 2012; Smith & Mraz, 2001). Trust building takes time—especially for
multicultural groups—and hence courses should be designed in such a way as to focus on
essential or absolutely necessary contents and to set aside sufficient group work time both in andoutside the classroom (through outside-the-class group projects) (Arkoudis et al., 2010; Poort etal., 2020; Shevellar, 2015).
For multicultural group work in general, other than what has been mentioned, Arkoudis et al.
(2010) suggest such practices as (a) incorporating multicultural interactions into course
objectives; (b) aligning assignment tasks to such interactions; (c) assigning members fromdifferent nationalities to the group (Shevellar, 2015; ໭ฟ៞Ꮚ, 2013); (d) setting expectations
for multicultural interactions from the beginning (also Sabbwarl, 2014, from organizational
studies); and (e) embedding reflection processes in course design—for example, an evaluation
form/survey for multicultural group work (ᐑᮏ⨾⬟, 2012; also Ely and Thomas, 2020 fromorganizational studies).

Inclusive Leadership Measurements
According to Shore et al. (2018), many studies of inclusion are built on Mor Barak's framework.
Her model first employed an “inclusion-exclusion” measure (Mor Barak and Cherin, 1998) andlater expanded with the idea that “diversity and organizational culture would contribute toperceptions of inclusion-exclusion, which would then lead to job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, individual well-being, and task effectiveness” (Shore et al. 2018, p.179) by Mor
Barak (2020). Li (2021) states the most used measure of inclusive leadership in the literature is theones developed by Carmeli et al (2010) and Nembhard and Edmondson (2006). Carmeli et al.’smeasure assesses three dimensions of inclusive leadership: openness, availability and accessibility.
Nembhard and Edmondson’s measure focuses on leaders’ words and behaviors which show theirinvitation to individuals’ contribution in the healthcare setting.
However, Randel et al. (2018) point out the lack of consensus of what constitutes leader
inclusiveness and how to measure it. Furthermore, although various measures were developed,
Shore et al. (2018) argue that validated measures which are conceptually grounded are still needed,
stating that it is not clear which measurements can best represent which inclusion theme and how
valid the measurements are. Moreover, these measurements are not necessarily developed toanalyze inclusion among diverse students in educational settings. Thompson and Matkin (2020)
argue that inclusive leadership research does not directly address intercultural competence research,such as the well-known models by Bennet (2004) and the inventory by Hammer (2008) and suggest

these connect inclusive leadership research to education research.
To sum up, current measurements are not sufficient to understand and analyze inclusion in
multicultural educational settings. Based on these models and measurements such as “inclusionexclusion” measures and framework of Shore et al. (2018) and Randel et al (2018), more targetedmeasurements considering intercultural learning and group-oriented outcomes need to be designed.
Our research therefore follows the conceptual frameworks in the literature and applies them toinvestigate inclusion in multicultural group work in higher education. For our measurement, we
employ the inclusion framework of Shore et al. (2011) with the four quadrants of belongingness
and uniqueness as key concepts. Then the concepts of perceptions and behaviors in inclusion by
Randel at al. (2018) are added to examine inclusion both in perceptions and behaviors of group
participants. Since we target multicultural groups in higher education, issues of languages, cultures,classroom group settings and outcomes are to be incorporated into measurement to fill the gap in
the models and concepts in the literature.

References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Arkoudis, S., Yu, X., Baik, C., Borland, H., Chang, S., Lang, I., Lang, J., Pearce, A., &Watty, K. (2010). Finding common ground: Enhancing interaction between
domestic and international students. https://melbournecshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2297206/FindingCommonGround_web.pdf
Bennett, M. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward
multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77).
Intercultural Resource Corporation. https://www.idrinstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/becoming_ic_competent.pdf
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/10.1177/0146167291175001
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R. & Enbal Z. (2010) Inclusive leadership and employee
involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role ofpsychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22 (3). 250-260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654
Cruickshank, K., Chen, H., & Warren, S. (2012, 2012/12/01). Increasing internationaland domestic student interaction through group work: A case study from thehumanities. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 797-810.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.669748
Ely, R., & Thomas, D. A. (2020). Getting serious about diversity: Enough already withthe business case. Harvard Business Review, 98(6), 115-122.
https://hbr.org/2020/11/getting-serious-about-diversity-enough-already-with-thebusiness-case
Ely, R. J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education
programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 755-780.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/job.268
Hammer, M.R. (2008). The intercultural development inventory (IDI): An approach forassessing and building intercultural competence. In M.A. Moodian (Ed.),
Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Understanding andutilizing cultural diversity to build successful organizations. Sage Publishing.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task
performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on groupfunctioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029-1045.
https://doi.org/10.5465/3069328
Homan, A. C., & Jehn, K. A. (2010). How leaders can make diverse groups less difficult:
The role of attitudes and perceptions of diversity. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The
handbook for working with difficult groups: How they are difficult, why they are
difficult and what you can do about it (1st ed., pp. 311-322). Jossey-Bass.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A metaanalytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599-627.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331491
Li, A. (2021). Inclusive leadership questionnaire: The design and validation of a theorybased instrument. PhD thesis at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences,
Columbia University. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/d8y4d9-yy69
Mor Barak (2000) The inclusive workplace: An ecosystems approach to diversity
management. Social Work, 45(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/45.4.339
Mor Barak, M.E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal
dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee
perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886398341006
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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/job.413
Poort, I., Jansen, E., & Hofman, A. (2020). Does the group matter? Effects of trust,
cultural diversity, and group formation on engagement in group work in higher
education. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1839024
Popov, V., Brinkman, D., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., Kuznetsov, A., & Noroozi, O.
(2012, 2012/03/01/). Multicultural student group work in higher education.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2), 302-317.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.09.004
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
Safipour, J., Wenneberg, S., & Hadziabdic, E. (2017). Experience of education in theinternational classroom-A systematic literature review. Journal of International
Students, 7(3), 806-824. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v7i3
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion tofurther performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197-217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202
Shevellar, L. (2015, 2015/04/21). From bearers of problems to bearers of culture:
Developing community in the community development classroom. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(4), 457-475.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.916433
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., 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/10.1177/0149206310385943.
Shore L.M., Cleveland, J.N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review andmodel. Human Resource Management Review, 28, 176-189.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288817598.pdf
Smith, P. G., & Mraz, S. (2001). Communication holds global teams together. Machine
Design, 73(14), 70–74.
https://www.machinedesign.com/archive/article/21814391/communication-holdsglobal-teams-together
Thompson, H. & Matkin, G. (2020). The evolution of inclusive leadership studies: A
literature review. Journal of Leadership Education, 19(3). 15-28.
https://journalofleadershiped.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/19_3_Matkin-2.pdf
Yefanova, D. N., Montgomery, M. L., Woodruff, G. A., Johnstone, C. J., & Kappler, B.
(2017). Instructional practices facilitating cross-national interactions in theundergraduate classroom. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 786-805
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v7i3.301
ᯘ⚈ᖹ᳃Ọ㞝ኴబ⸨భᶞ ᓥ㈏ᬛ⾜. (2019). ⫋ሙࡢࢲ࢖ࣂ࣮ࢩࢸ࢕ࡀ༠ຊ
ᚿྥⓗࣔࢳ࣮࣋ࢩࣙࣥࢆྥୖࡉࡏࡿ࣓࢝ࢽࢬ࣒᪥ᮏ⤒ႠᏛ఍ㄅ, 42, 5262. https://doi.org/10.24472/keieijournal.42.0_52

໭ฟ៞Ꮚ. (2013). ࠗ┦஫ᩥ໬Ꮫ⩦࠘ᤵᴗࡢព⩏࡜タィ̿ࢢ࣮ࣟࣂࣝ♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
ゝㄒᩥ໬ᩍ⫱ࡢᅾࡾ᪉̿❧࿨㤋ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲, 24(3), 117-130.
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k-rsc/lcs/kiyou/pdf_24-3/RitsIILCS_24.3pp.117130Kitade.pdf
ᐑᮏ⨾⬟. (2012). ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡟ࠗከᩥ໬ඹ⏕࠘ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࢆᵓ⠏ࡍࡿ㸫␃Ꮫ⏕࡜᪥ᮏேᏛ⏕ࡢΰྜࢡࣛࢫࡢ୰࡛␗ᩥ໬㛫ᩍ⫱Ꮫ఍ዡບ◊✲ㄽ㞟.
http://www.intercultural.jp/about/resume/mm_resume.pdf
㇂ཱྀ┿⨾. (2016). ከᵝᛶ࡜࣮ࣜࢲ࣮ࢩࢵࣉ̿᭕᫕࡛」㞧࡞⌧㇟ࡢᤊ࠼᪉̿⤌⧊⛉Ꮫ, 50(1), 4-24. https://doi.org/10.11207/soshikikagaku.50.1_4