Unconditional acceptance of the otherness of the other: A relational approach to inclusive leadership with Levinas and Bourdieu

Unconditional acceptance of the otherness of the other: A relational approach to inclusive leadership with Levinas and Bourdieu
In this paper we propose a novel theoretical and practical approach to inclusive leadership that builds on relational ideas of unconditional acceptance of the otherness of the other and leaders’ practical reflexivity. We argue that leadership studies need a more reflexive concept of inclusiveness to deal with contemporary challenges of respect for class and gender difference, intersectionality, multicultural globalisation in the postcolonial workplace, and respect for human rights of diversity in the workplace. To support this search for a new and more inclusive concept of leadership we rely on the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s (1930-2002) concept of reflexive practice to demonstrate the need for reflexivity in inclusive leadership. Moreover, to promote a humanistic perspective of inclusiveness, we turn towards the work of the phenomenological philosopher Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) who defended an ethical humanism of respect for the otherness of the other. We suggest that such new humanistic management is needed to propose a well-founded conceptualization of inclusive leadership.
Although the effects of diversity and inclusivity have been debated, the business case for diversity is acknowledged (Özbilgin et al., 2019). In a large empirical study, Herring (2009), for example, found that race and gender diversity increased relative profits among other things in for-profit organizations. Quite much has been said about the motives for inclusive leadership practices (Ferdman et al., 2020). Societies may expect businesses and other organizations to do more than what is legally required of them in terms of organizational diversity, and the social justice case for diversity is the prioritization of diversity because society believes it is fair and just (Luanglath et al., 2019). In this perspective, equal opportunities for all are essential to a sustainable society (Mackinnon, 2009), and it is in this context that humanistic ethical leadership is needed.
The complexity of organizational inclusivity by leaders and others is, however, immense as noted by several scholars (Ferdman et al., 2020). A starting point of inclusivity is the identification of what / who needs inclusion, which concerns identifying the salient diversity categories (Roberson, 2019). The diversity field is dominated by approaches from psychology and organizational behaviorism that identify diversity in terms of etic and essentialist single-categories (Roberson, 2019). A weakness of these categories is that they are acontextual and may overlook how multiple forms of difference are at play (Roberson, 2019; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). Furthermore, it has been argued that it is actors, belonging to the privileged groups in organizations who define the dominant assumptions about diversity and inclusivity (Romani et al., 2019; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012), which could take shape as ‘benevolent discrimination’, where well-intended inclusivity and diversity initiatives may in fact reproduce inequalities (Romani et al., 2019).
In suggesting a relational approach that builds on Levinas’ philosophy of the I-THOU relation combined with Bourdieu’s approach to reflexive practice, we forward an emic approach to inclusivity (Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012), where diversity categories emerge in the relations between leaders and their subordinates though leaders’ reflexive practice in the context of particular fields of operation. We argue that reflexive practice allows leaders to unmask and break with dominant understandings of diversity categories and how inclusivity should be practiced (Willis, 2019). Reflexive practice is for Bourdieu socially constituted and it allows practitioners to ‘grasp and master pre-reflexive’ doxas and in this way to overturn existing practices through awareness of the logics that produce them (Bourdieu, 2003, p. 283). Levinas proposes a strong concept of inclusivity since it is the encounter with the other human being that is the basis for becoming oneself (Levinas, 1969). In this encounter, there is an ethical demand of infinity and responsibility. The relation between the self and the other is asymmetrical. The other implies a devotion of the self and the self receives responsibility for the other. Levinas can in this sense distinguish between the real and authentic inclusiveness of the other as opposed to a formal and apparent inclusion with no deep significance. Authentic inclusive leadership implies the ability to transcend oneself and reach the infinity of the other that is expressed in inclusion of the world of the other in the community of the organization. This means that inclusive leadership in organizations implies a continuous effort to integrate the perspective of the other and others in reflexive humanistic management.