Rebecca and I were invited to a podcast to talk about our book Simplifying Inclusive Leadership. We came in prepared, energised, and eager to share our perspective on what it truly means to lead inclusively in today’s world. What we didn’t expect was that less than ten minutes into the conversation, the host would pause the recording, look us in the eye, and say he no longer wished to continue.
Why? Because our worldview clashed with his.
We had asked for a briefing call before the recording, but he preferred to keep things “natural.” What became clear very quickly, though, was how far apart our values were. He was visibly triggered by our framing of inclusive leadership as a systemic practice rooted in critical theory, the recognition that social structures such as patriarchy, colonisation, and racial hierarchy shape who gets what, and that inclusive leaders must play an active role in dismantling these structures.
For him, inclusion meant something very different. He believed that equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) has been weaponised, that the West has already made “enough progress,” and that inclusive leadership simply meant treating everyone the same. He wanted us to endorse this “neutral” position, a perspective often summed up in phrases like “diversity of thought” or “we’re all equal now.”
But Rebecca and I are clear in our stance. Inclusive leadership is not passive. You cannot treat everyone the same when the playing field is not level. Equity requires leaders to acknowledge history, address systemic barriers and social hierarchies, and actively work toward dismantling them.
The clash of worldviews
This interaction isn’t unusual. Many people, particularly those from dominant groups, may be unaware of the systemic nature of inequity. To them, fairness looks like sameness. Yet sameness, in practice, reinforces privilege. When structures advantage some and disadvantage others, “treating everyone the same” only perpetuates inequity.
We explained that meritocracy, while important in theory, cannot function without conditions of fairness, including the dismantling of systemic hierarchies. The host disagreed. He felt that by naming patriarchy and colonisation, we were going “too far,” ignoring the progress already made. He even suggested that EDI activism was part of the problem.
At that moment, it was clear that the conversation could not continue productively.
Knowing when to walk away
Here’s the lesson: inclusive leadership also means discernment. Sometimes, the most inclusive choice is to keep engaging, to educate, to try and build bridges. But other times, continuing a conversation only reinforces resistance, drains energy, and distracts from where true change can happen.
Walking away is not failure. It is clarity. It signals that our energy is better spent with those who are ready to lean in, to listen, and to act.
Resistance brings clarity
The rise of the anti-EDI movement may feel discouraging, but in reality, it helps us see more clearly. It removes the fog and shows us who our true allies are. It distinguishes between those who are committed to systemic fairness and those who are performative – embracing inclusion only when it is convenient or superficial.
This clarity allows us to use our energy wisely. Rather than trying to convert every sceptic, we can focus on building coalitions with those who genuinely share our values and are willing to do the work.
The power of critical mass
And here lies the hope. We do not need everyone to agree for change to happen. Social science shows us that what we need is a critical mass. A study by Damon Centola and colleagues (2018) demonstrated that once a committed minority reaches around 25% of a population, they can overturn established norms and spark widespread social change. In other words, you don’t need a majority to shift the system, you need a quarter of people deeply committed to a new way forward.
This insight is liberating. It means our efforts are not in vain, even when we meet resistance. Every time we identify, support, and connect with genuine allies, we move closer to that tipping point, to our critical mass. Our job is to make ourselves visible to attract people like us in this movement and not entertain those who care about other things.
The right side of history
So where does this leave us?
We live in a world facing profound social and environmental crises – many of them born from systems of exploitation and oppression. The question is not whether we should shift these systems, but whether we can afford not to.
Inclusive leadership is about choosing to be on the right side of history. It is about actively levelling the playing field, ensuring access and fairness, and creating conditions where all can thrive.
The good news is that we don’t need everyone. We need critical mass. We need those willing to do the work, to recognise how history brought us here, and to imagine what a sustainable, equitable world could look like.
When conversations stop – as they did in that podcast – it only reminds us how important it is to keep speaking. To keep connecting. To keep building that 25%. So we need to focus on the right people.
Because once we reach it, change is not just possible. It’s inevitable.
Quick Q&A
- Why is treating everyone the same not enough?
Because sameness assumes a level playing field, which simply doesn’t exist. Equity requires recognising history and removing systemic barriers so fairness can be real.
- What does it mean for inclusive leaders to be “active”?
Inclusive leadership is not neutral. It means using your influence to dismantle inequities, open doors for marginalised groups, and create access where it has been historically denied.
- Do we need everyone on board for change to happen?
No. Research shows that once 25% of people commit to a new way of thinking, they can shift social norms and spark systemic change. We need critical mass, not universal agreement.
Reference
Centola, D., Becker, J., Brackbill, D., & Baronchelli, A. (2018). Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science, 360(6393), 1116–1119. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas8827
