The Increasing Need for Inclusive Leadership for Academic Loyalty in Higher Education Institutions

Abstract

Higher education institutions (HEIs) and tertiary education have continued to evolve over the centuries. This evolution brings along also the need for leadership to understand their contribution to ensuring tertiary education and HEIs remain relevant by being centers of innovation to the communities they serve. As a result, the future HEIs depend on its leadership and it allows its academics, as members of collectives, to communicate and negotiate with their institutions, through their leaders and managers, to be recognized and supported for their understanding and practices. Inclusive leadership provides academics with a feeling of a sense of belonging, thus contributing to the vision and goals of the HEIs. On their part, HEIs are meant to continually be centers of innovation, and to achieve this, they must provide leadership that is inclusive by ensuring equality, diversity, and inclusion. This will enable academics to perceive and understand the institutional support available to them towards their innovativeness and achieving their professional goals and ambitions. This chapter explored the influence of inclusive leadership in higher education institutions, from an inclusive approach, on academic innovation based on the purview of its antecedents and consequences on perceived institutional support (PIS).

1. Introduction

Higher education institutions (HEIs) provide tertiary education and are one of the most evolved organizations that are structurally, socially, and culturally complex as they harbor multi-faculty, multi-site, and multi-functional organizations [1]. According to Middlehurst et al., HEIs are indicated to be structurally complex because they combine the delivery of different services and functions to different markets, both locally and internationally, and are socially and culturally complex because the community harbors a range of academic tribes and cultures [2]. The nature of HEIs shows that these institutions are places for change and innovation because they continuously evolve with their focus being harnessed towards the development of industrial capitalism [3]. The literature also indicated that rapid evolutions kicked off in the latter half of the twentieth century with discoveries in a diversity of science branches, with the need for production coordination, distribution, and exchange (i.e., business and marketing), and the rise of workers’ expectations towards income and social status (i.e., organization and human behaviors) [4]. The rapid development of HEIs has, however, propelled innovation, which is said to be crucial for promoting economic growth and producing favorable outcomes for the environment and society [4].

In their study, Drucker and Maciariello indicated that knowledge is essential for innovation because it significantly impacts society and helps organizations obtain advance and develop healthily [5]. Stimulated by this understanding, relevant literature has indicated that while knowledge is a fundamental ingredient for social innovation, the significance of tertiary or higher education cannot be underestimated. This is because tertiary education being the bulwark of knowledge is the most effective avenue for the dissemination and absorption of knowledge to advance innovation and enhance societal growth [3]. For example, partnerships between HEIs and their communities have not only enhanced the promotion of societal participation but have also brought about the co-production of knowledge that can be actively targeted for a more sustainable society [6, 7]. This further implies that HEIs or tertiary education are institutions that catalyze social innovation [8]. Moreover, while some studies have suggested that HEIs have a significant role to play in the quadruple helix to the realization of sustainable development, others have argued that these institutions should explore ways to improve and advance knowledge on the practice of leadership and management because it actively supports the promotion and generation of social innovation [9, 10]. HEIs are made up of interpersonal teams that work together to deliver services and make decisions that are changing the world in a variety of ways. These interprofessional teams are highly intellectual, focused, and innovative, and consist of diverse people with different experiences, specializations, demography, and cultures [11, 12]. As a result, HEIs benefit a great deal from the diversity in the workforce and their communities [13].

Studies have shown that HEI diversity levels have a significant impact on their knowledge-related advantages that influence their innovative abilities as a center of excellence [14]. Likewise, the relevant literature has acknowledged that improvement in higher education quality is largely influenced by the performance of the academics, however, this is greatly influenced by leadership [15]. As a result, leadership must ensure that enhancing the job performance of academics is crucial, not only for themselves but for the innovativeness and sustainability of the HEI [16]. However, the literature has argued that in the focus on leadership particularly in HEIs, “context” is essential in the conceptualization and practice of leadership [17, 18, 19]. This Middlehurst et al. explained is because those who engaged in leadership in HEIs are aware of the significance of context and are repeatedly dismissive of the generalized solution to distinctive issues [2]. For instance, the relevant literature indicated that “questions and comments that are regularly heard from practitioners include, ‘I couldn’t apply those practices in my department …. because colleagues wouldn’t accept them’ or ‘applying those practices would undermine core values and relationships’” [2]. Moreover, Gibbs et al.’s study on leadership in a Higher Education (HE) environment provided evidence to support the idea that leadership must be “fit-for-context” because it is influenced by the conditions within a faculty and its leader must deal with, one of which is the workforce diversity [19].

Additionally, most HEIs have been identified to have not been able to take the fullest advantage of the opportunity their workforce diversity provides to drive and build on their innovative abilities and possibilities because of high-level internal frictions, hostilities, underperformance, and most importantly, the shortcomings and failure of leadership at departmental or faculty level [20, 21]. Based on this context, the literature argues that this is the cause of the growing demand for inclusive leadership in HEIs, especially in the administration of academics [22]. In response to what appears to be a call for greater inclusivity and inclusive leadership to promote and harness innovativeness, leaders and managers in HEIs assert that it is because they have transitioned from collaborative decision-making to more corporate, entrepreneurial, or managerial models due to the growing array of institutional demands [17, 23]. Furthermore, it is also argued that the growing pressure on HEI management to “do more with less” is one of the primary causes of the heightened innovation rivalry HEIs are facing from other education-related organizations [24]. The question, therefore, is, should institutional demands affect HEI leaders in engaging and practicing inclusive leadership, or should HEIs not encourage the need for inclusive leadership across departments and faculties to boost their institution’s innovative abilities? To help answer this question, this chapter draws and builds on knowledge from relevant literature on the pertinent perspectives of leadership and institutional support towards the understanding of their implication on innovation in HEIs.

In achieving its goal, the body of this chapter is divided into five sections, with this section introducing the context and flow of the chapter. Section 2 focuses on and discusses leadership, and the influence of equality, diversity, and inclusion in HEIs. Section 3 focuses on inclusive leadership and perceived institutional support (PIS), and their antecedents, consequences, and challenges. Finally, while Section 4 builds on Section 3 with its extended discussion on leadership and inclusive leadership and also discusses academic loyalty, Section 5 provides the chapter’s conclusion.

2. Leadership and leadership in HEI

Although the field of knowledge in leadership has experienced rapid growth and boasts an inspiring depth of research and theoretical advancement, leadership literature has continuously found it difficult to adequately conceptualize the social dynamics that are characteristically encountered within the contexts of social diversity in multi-structure and multi-functional organizations like HEIs [25]. In their study, Dinh et al. provided 23 themes of leadership theory and 66 different leadership theory fields that illustrate the depth and intricacy of contemporary leadership studies [26]. Gardner et al. indicated that research in leadership has become more multi-focused, robust, diverse, and multifaceted [27]. In his book, Management: Theory and Practice, Dale described leadership as “a dynamic process within a group, in which an individual influences others to willingly participate in the execution of the group’s tasks, in a particular situation” [28]. Stated differently, leadership is about encouraging actions that support the accomplishment of organizational goals, inspiring employees through a variety of leadership philosophies, cultivating strong interpersonal ties, encouraging communication and teamwork within the organization, and involving employees in decision-making. As a result, leadership and management represent distinct dimensions to the person in charge. Effective leadership involves the capacity to motivate others to act, while the manager is responsible for ensuring that the organization’s goals are met through organizing, planning, and guiding work to completion [29]. Leadership is seen as leading at an informal group level, and the leader guides the group; it symbolizes the capacity to persuade people to complete a task, in contrast to management, which is more of a formalized, institutionalized form of leading [30]. More so, “leader” and “manager” are two concepts used sometimes as synonyms, although they are differentiated by specifics. According to Drugus and Landoy, the “leader” tends to reflect the concentration on the visionary, experimental, flexible, and creative characteristics, while the “manager” tends to represent the extreme of the continuum focused on aspects, including analytical, structured, regulated, deliberate, and organized [29]. However, most HEIs are now being identified to be taking a managerial, corporate, and entrepreneurial leadership approach that has been identified as alien and “not-fit-for-context” of HEI’s academic administration system that is meant to be built on collegiality, collaboration, and participative decision-making [19]. The impact of this has been the decline in the performance of the academics and the innovativeness of the HE community.

Leadership in Higher Education can take many different forms and levels, according to the analysis of leadership and participation in leadership development. These include formal leadership positions for organizational or managerial leadership, professional leadership for upholding professional standards and performing in functional roles, intellectual and disciplinary leadership for expanding the boundaries of knowledge and conceptual understanding, personal leadership for demonstrating credibility, charisma, expertise, and other qualities, team leadership for developing collaborative agendas and working practices, and political leadership for forming coalitions, networks, and social capital [2, 31]. This is also among the fundamental reasons the literature argued for the growing demand for inclusive leadership in HEIs, especially in the administration and management of academics [22]. Furthermore, studies have continued to emphasize that HEIs should develop their leadership and management approach based on the theme of inclusivity rather than mimicking those of the corporate sector for the management of academics [32, 33]. Furthermore, it has been determined that equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), which guarantee the gathering of reliable and secure judgment to assess the institution’s worth and expansion, are the fundamental elements of inclusive leadership practice in HEIs [13].

2.1 Equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI)

Effective people management requires HE leadership to promote and implement EDI [34]. EDI is acknowledged to be important for HEIs based on two fundamental reasons, first, based on the business case “as it has a positive financial and reputational impact” and second, based on the moral case “as it creates a better society within and outside of the institution” [35, 36]. On the other hand, it has been stated that EDI policies in HEIs have primarily served as a smokescreen to address or contest real inequalities and to mask structural inequities [37]. Moreover, the relevant literature has argued that the reporting and bureaucracy associated with the involvement of EDI have not resulted in real change in HEIs but rather a “lip service” endeavor of leadership engaging in a tick-box exercise or at most only address the related issues for their benefit and not the academic performance and innovative potentials [38].

2.1.1 Equality

Equality in HEIs is all about ensuring that academics have equal opportunities to make the most of their talents and professional lives [39]. The moral case for building fairer and more inclusive academic teams in HEIs is indisputable, based on recognizing and valuing identity, background, or circumstances. Like all other employees, academics have the right to work in a secure, encouraging, and welcoming atmosphere, to be compensated and acknowledged for their creative work, to have a meaningful voice, and to be able to fully develop their skills and talents [40]. Equality recognizes that some groups may have been shortchanged, however, now this is being pushed back for social justice and towards changing the system for not seeing the deficit in the individual or group. From a management/leadership perspective, achieving equality of outcomes necessitates leadership to recognize obstacles and prejudices and implement focused measures to address disparities, prejudice, disadvantages, and marginalization faced by groups and individuals [41]. Leadership needs to understand that inequality can take many different forms, including direct or indirect manifestations through behaviors, policies, and cultures, as well as indirect manifestations through prejudice, oppression, and discrimination [42].

2.1.2 Diversity

Diversity, in the context of HEIs, is defined as the range of diverse individuals and ideas present in the institution as well as the establishment of an atmosphere where individuals feel included, respected, valued, and empowered to contribute their “authentic” selves—that is, their ideas, backgrounds, values, and perspectives—to the team and the HEI [43]. Based on the definition, the diversity of academics in HEIs can be argued as the degree to which the academic team in a faculty or department differs in their ideas, backgrounds, values, and perspectives [44]. The review of relevant literature identified two main perspectives on its relevance in interprofessional teams. First, there is the information/decision-making perspective, which maintains that diversity gives teams access to knowledge assets that facilitate more thorough analysis and well-informed, creative solutions. It indicates that diversity is a stand-in for knowledge disparities [24]. Second, according to the social identity perspective, social categorization is based on individuals’ perceptions of their shared and unique characteristics [39]. This chapter does not underplay the significance of various identities but acknowledges that diversity must not stop by focusing mainly on different identities. In HE, the importance of these identities in the leadership and management team must be seen, as this will bring some sense of belonging to the academics who are innovative and aim to grow in their career to leadership positions.

Gardenswartz et al. emphasize variety along four dimensions: personality, external (faith, educational background, job experiences), internal (age, race, gender), and organizational (department unit, seniority, management status) [45]. Therefore, in addition to fostering individual uniqueness by appreciating varied contributions to a team, a leader should foster inclusivity by potentially improving positive team outcomes by influencing the social identification process to foster collaboration and reduce situations that might incite animosity between groups [14, 46]. Academics bring a varied set of backgrounds and experiences to the table when it comes to decision-making, innovation, and problem-solving, as evidenced by pertinent HEI research. However, the literature also shows that having a diverse workforce and accepting differences are insufficient; for workers to reach their full potential, they also need to feel empowered, as they belong, and comfortable enough to voice their opinions [37].

2.1.3 Inclusion

Inclusion has been argued by scholars that it should come first within the context of EDI because it is that which makes equality and diversity possible [47, 48]. While Shore et al. defined inclusion “as the degree to which an employee perceives that s/he is a revered member of the work group by experiencing behaviors and actions that satisfy his or her belongingness and exclusivity” [49], Stefani and Blessinger described inclusive leadership as the critical ability to leverage diverse thinking in employees with increasing diversity in talent, skills, and knowledge [20]. These definitions were based on Brewer’s optimal distinctiveness theory and the inclusion framework used to identify the manner in which inclusive leaders establish an environment of inclusion for followers based on the elements of uniqueness and belongingness [50]. A leader’s inclusiveness is argued to be the use of influence-based relationships to enhance team identity [51], by enhancing collaboration through the perception of shared goals [22]. Thus, it enables to strike a balance between an employee’s feeling of being like others (i.e., belongingness) and being appreciated for their differences (i.e., exclusivity) resulting in positive impacts in the workplace [52]. Simply inclusion within a leadership context demands the exclusion of barriers—be they structural, societal, or attitude-based, to enable every member of the team or group to participate fully and equally. In the context of HEI leadership, eliminating barriers could include the modification of policies, practices, habits, culture, and environments, in addition to encouraging open communication and mutual trust.

Furthermore, by persuading followers that their diverse viewpoints and ideas are valued and respected, this style of leadership has been shown to lessen members’ perceptions of status disparities, and variations in the respect and influence bestowed based on the profession [53, 54]. Based on its implementation and growth in HEIs, the analysis of inclusive leadership approaches reveals that they exist at various levels and forms, including formal leadership positions for organizational or managerial leadership, professional leadership for upholding professional standards and fulfilling functional roles, intellectual and disciplinary leadership for expanding knowledge and conceptual understanding, personal leadership for developing collaborative agendas and working practices, and political leadership for forming coalitions, networks, and social capital [17]. Therefore, it can be argued that an inclusive leadership approach in HEIs will motivate academics intrinsically, which will have a further increase in their job satisfaction levels and loyalty to the institution [55].

3. Inclusive leadership and perceived institutional support (PIS)

Negative attitudes and ideas regarding race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, lifestyle, socioeconomic status, age, language, religion, disability, and their interconnections are less common when inclusive leadership is practiced [56]. According to Greco et al., inclusive leaders create a climate in which employees feel psychologically comfortable sharing opinions that often contradict the organization’s conventions by being approachable and transparent with one another [51]. In essence, emotionally invested workers essentially perform better, are less likely to be absent from work, and are less likely to quit because they feel heard, involved, and appreciated by their employer [57]. Benefits like respect and approval, compensation and advancement, information access, and other types of assistance required to help employees perform their jobs properly can result from feeling appreciated by the organization, which based on the norm of reciprocity, ensures that both employers and employees can reconcile these distinctive orientations [58].

Organizational support (OS) theory addresses the psychological processes that are fundamental to employees’ perceived organizational support (POS). OS theorists postulate that employees form views about how much the organization appreciates their contributions and cares about their well-being, and that these beliefs help the organization decide whether to reward increased work effort and address socioemotional needs [57]. The relevant literature discussed that the enhancement of the POS is encouraged by employees’ inclination to attribute the organization with humanlike characteristics [59]. As a result, Levinson indicated in his study that rather than being attributed to the agents, activities made by the organization’s agents are frequently seen as indicators of the organization’s aim, objectives, or goals [60]. The organization’s policies, conventions, and culture, which offer continuity and model behavior, as well as the influence the agents have over specific employees, all contribute to this personification of the organization. It also reflects the organization’s moral, legal, and financial accountability for the acts of its agents [57]. For this literature, we adapt the perceived organizational support to the perceived institutional support (PIS) to augment our understanding as we focus on HEIs. Since HEIs are recognized internationally as distinct organizational forms that are a component of a broader national innovation system in which a multitude of theoretical, empirical, and normative concerns arise as knowledge, the authors accept Gbobaniyi et al.’s work on the adaption of the POS to PIS [61]. Additionally, even though they are primarily focused on creating, producing, and sharing knowledge, HEIs, like other businesses, rely on different, multidisciplinary people with varying degrees of knowledge-based assets [2]. This adaptation of the POS to PIS is used to set the basis for the differentiation and grounded explanation of academics from employees. Though academics are employees of HEIs, they identify more with themselves as individuals than with the institution with their actions towards teaching and research [1].

Likewise, social exchange (SE) theorists have argued that employment is the trade of effort and loyalty for tangible benefits and social rewards [62]. When an employer is seen and perceived to treat employees well, the reciprocity norm obliges the return of favorable treatment from the employees to the employer [63]. To the extent that both the employee and the employer apply the reciprocity norm to their relationship, as both parties reciprocate favorable treatment leading to beneficial outcomes for them. Furthermore, proponents of social exchange theory contend that resources obtained from others are valued more highly when they are the result of voluntary decisions rather than events outside the donor’s control [62]. As a result, voluntary aid from an HEI to an academic is welcomed as an indication that the HEI and its leadership genuinely value and respect them, which can influence their job satisfaction, retention, and loyalty. Institutional rewards and favorable job conditions, such as pay, promotions, job enrichment (i.e., research grants and funding; conferences, workshops, and training attendance), and influence over institutional policies, contribute more to PIS if academics believe it is a result of the HEI’s voluntary actions, as opposed to external constraints, such as union negotiations or governmental health and safety regulations [64]. As faculty or departmental managers act as HEI agents, the academic’s receipt of favorable treatment from a line manager contributes to PIS. However, the receipt of favorable treatment from a direct line leadership depends on the leadership style or approach and strength of the relationship between the manager and subordinate, as opposed to viewing the line manager’s actions as idiosyncratic. The literature has shown that for HEIs’ leadership/management to manifest such a relationship with their academics, they must look towards ensuring inclusivity, which will allow them to understand the needs of their academics and provide for them [65].

3.1 Inclusive leadership and PIS antecedents

In line with the OS theory, to increase PIS and loyalty, academics through leadership should receive from their HEIs three general forms of favorable treatment [59]. However, for leaders/managers to be able to bring about these treatments to their subordinates, they must have an inclusive approach that will endow these three treatments.

1. Fairness—this is based on how procedural justice is used in determining the distribution of resources among academics at the departmental or faculty level [66]. According to the literature, a concern for academic welfare, workload distribution, conference and research funds, and fairness in resource allocation decisions should be demonstrated repeatedly and have a significant cumulative impact on PIS [62]. Studies have differentiated between structural and social aspects of procedural justice [67]. Accordingly, the structural aspect involves the HEI’s formal rules and policies concerning decisions that affect employees, including an acceptable notification period before decisions are implemented, receipt of accurate information, and voice (i.e., employee input in the decision process) [68]. The quality of treatment among individuals while allocating resources is one of the social dimensions, often known as interactional justice. Social components include giving workers knowledge about how results are decided upon and treating them with respect and decency [68].

   Related to fairness and based on procedural justice is the concept of perceived organizational politics. Organizational politics is the phrase used to describe efforts made by an individual or group to persuade others to act in ways that advance their interests, frequently at the expense of rewards for individual or group achievement or the advancement of the organization [69]. However, while organizational or workplace politics are a reality of organizational life, scholars have argued that political behavior in such environments can have both positive and negative implications for leadership and followership [70, 71]. Research indicates that workplace or organizational politics in most cases is detrimental to employees’ engagement, performance, trust, and loyalty. Academics in faculties or departments that are engrained in politics have been found to have a negative approach to PIS and a low perception of fair procedures and outcomes, thus lowering their loyalty, job satisfaction, and performance [70, 71, 72].

2. Line manager support—studies have shown that employees often form their opinions on how much their employer values them, in addition to having a perception of how much their line manager values their contributions and the manager’s concern towards their welfare [16, 30, 54]. This is due to the fact that line managers serve as the organization’s representatives, overseeing and assessing the work of their subordinates. As a result, workers interpret their line manager’s actions and demeanor towards them as a reflection of the organization’s support [71]. In the context of HEIs, academics understand that line managers’ (i.e., program leaders, departmental heads) evaluations of subordinates are often conveyed to upper management, further contributing to associating line management support with PIS. As a result, based on the literature, support from line management becomes assessed with related measures involving leader-member exchange [73].

3. Institutional rewards and job conditions—relevant research has demonstrated a positive relationship between POS and human resource procedures that acknowledge employee efforts [63]. Related studies on HEIs concerning POS or PIS have indicated its effect on a variety of rewards and job conditions, e.g., awards, recognition, promotions, autonomy, job security, job-related stressors, and access to professional development and training, i.e., research funding and grants and funds for conferences [57, 74].

   Based on the OS theory, favorable opportunities for rewards contribute to PIS and serve to convey a positive valuation of an academic’s inputs to their department, faculty, and institution [72]. Unlike other forms of employees in workplaces, academics are one of those professionals where reward based on pay is their least motivator, this is because of their mindset that they are top achievers [70]. Academics have been found to favor being recognized and valued for their performance and contribution to their HEI through awards, promotions, and autonomy [75, 76]. By autonomy, we mean an academic’s perceived control over their job, including task variety, work procedures, and scheduling. Autonomy indicates HEIs’ trust in their academics to decide how they will carry out their job, thereby increasing PIS [75]. Moreover, fidelity to the HEI is more likely when faculty members believe the institution values quality and provides the assistance they need to succeed. To meet the expectations of their professional or social circle, this will further impact their decision to stay in the HEI longer and their willingness to identify the HEI as part of their society identity [61, 77].

   On job security, the literature indicates that HEIs tend to assure job security, which tends to provide a strong indication of PIS for academics, particularly in recent years when downsizing has become prevalent in many other sectors [78]. Job-related stressors are work-related demands with which employees feel unable to cope and they feel are controllable by the organization [79]. Role ambiguity, or not knowing exactly what one’s job responsibilities are, role conflict, or having job responsibilities that are mutually incompatible, and work overload, or demands that exceed what an academic can reasonably accomplish at a given time, are the three main types of work-related stressors on academics in HEIs that have been found to have negative effects on PIS [64]. The higher the job-related stressors on an employee the lower the PIS. Lastly, on access to professional development and training, Wayne et al. suggested that access to professional development and training are discretionary practices by communicating an investment in the academic by the HEI, thus leading to increased PIS [80]. Thus, leading to increased innovation and performance by academics.

3.2 Inclusive leadership and PIS consequences

1. Institutional commitment—based on the reciprocity norm, as academics perceive and can receive the institutional support they need through their HEI and leaders, this in return creates a felt obligation on the academics to also care about the HEI’s reputation and future [58, 81]. The obligation to reciprocate care enhances employees’ affective obligation and trust in the personified organization [62]. PIS should also increase affective commitment by fulfilling an academic’s socioemotional needs (i.e., affiliation and emotional support) that will strengthen their loyalty to the organization [59]. Additionally, it is suggested that while PIS might increase trust and loyalty towards the institution, it may also lessen emotions of entrapment (i.e., continuance commitment) which arise when employees are compelled to remain with an organization due to the high costs of quitting [82].

2. Job-related affection—while the relevant literature has shown that inclusive leadership in HEIs allows academics to develop PIS, trust, and loyalty [61], studies have also hypothesized that the PIS influences academics’ general affective reactions to their jobs, including job satisfaction and positive mood [63]. According to Witt, job satisfaction is an employee’s overall affect-laden attitude towards their job [83]. Therefore, it can be said that PIS will be able to enhance an employee’s total job satisfaction since inclusive leadership impacts it by attending to socioemotional needs, raising performance-reward expectations, and indicating the availability of assistance when required [82, 84].

3. Job involvement—this refers to the association with an interest in the work/role that is being undertaken [68]. HEIs that promote and ensure inclusivity in their leadership are more likely to enhance PIS which can transcend to increasing not only the academic’s loyalty to the institution but also advance their interest in their work [52].

4. Performance—as previously discussed, inclusive leadership enhances academics’ PIS, which should improve their performance on standard job activities and tasks favorable to the HEI that go beyond their designated responsibilities [54]. In HE, such extra-role activities include aiding fellow academics in the community of practice, offering constructive suggestions, taking actions that not only protect the HEI from risk but bolster its recognition nationally and internationally, and gaining knowledge and skills that are beneficial to the HEI [85].

5. Strains—by emphasizing the provision of both material and emotional support when required, inclusive leadership and PIS in HEIs may lessen adverse psychological and psychosomatic reactions (i.e., strains) to stressors, according to knowledge from the pertinent research [73, 79, 84].

6. Academic loyalty “Desire to remain”—studies that have investigated the relationship between POS/PIS, inclusive leadership, and the employees’ loyalty or longing to remain with the organization or HEI have indicated positive effects of inclusive leadership on academic loyalty e.g., [61, 86, 87].

3.3 Challenges to inclusive leadership

1. Biases—everyone has biases, with most being unconscious and impossible to remove completely. Biases influence how people work with others, especially in pressured situations and environments such as in HEIs. The Halo Effect, which is the inclination to hold someone in higher regard after learning something impressive about them, ageism, which is the tendency to feel negatively about someone based on their age and which frequently affects academics who are significantly younger or older than the average age in the faculty or department, and looks bias, which is the tendency to view someone who is more physically attractive than average—according to cultural standards—as more competent or favorable than people of average or below average perceived physical attractiveness—are a few examples of the biases academics in higher education have identified [70, 88].

2. Diversity of thought—this entails acknowledging that individuals differ from one another in a variety of ways, including their opinions, work methods (decision-making, communication, and leadership), experiences, and personality types [89].

3. The self-perception trap—many leaders/managers perceive themselves to have more inclusive behavior than they do, making them do less than they can to promote, encourage, and develop an inclusive environment [88]. The study by Bourke et al. showed that a third of leaders believe they are more inclusive than they are perceived by those around them [88]. It is assumed that part of the problem with inclusive leadership is that organizational leaders/managers do not have the tools or training on inclusive behaviors [86, 90]. This is the reason that HEIs are being encouraged and urged to cultivate, use, and further develop an inclusive leadership approach based on their inherent diversity, because being an educational environment, they will be able to research, design, and train leaders and managers on inclusive behaviors [17, 22].

4. The majority of organizational systems, procedures, and cultures do not encourage inclusive behavior because they are not built to enable inclusion. The pertinent literature made the case that organizations have traditionally placed high importance on efficiency, which is the antithesis of diversity and is typically attained through a decision-making process that involves fewer individuals and difficulties [14, 91, 92].

5. Inclusive skills and behaviors have not been acquired—inclusive leadership is a sought-after skill set that is increasingly becoming a critical capability in some industries and sectors [91]. Unfortunately, not every leader/manager has this skill set, this is because only one in three organizations has a strategy for training leaders to be inclusive, which has been argued to be the reason that 33% of leaders lack confidence in inclusion [56].

4. Leadership, inclusive leadership, and academic loyalty

Initially seen as a managerial oversight role, leadership emerges when someone helps others accomplish goals and assumes a pivotal role when faced with a novel challenge [87]. The leader provides superior solutions and fosters a safe environment that guides followers towards a new shape. Relationships are the foundation of leadership, and it is an ongoing process of mutual learning and information sharing between superiors and subordinates [91]. The undervaluation of the dynamics of power and politics in forming perception and exercising leadership, however, is revealed by a study of pertinent literature on management and leadership research in HE that is based on psychological and behavioral approaches [17]. An effective leader must be flexible enough to adjust to changing circumstances and make sure that the requirements of their subordinates are met to the fullest extent possible to maximize their effectiveness in achieving both personal and group objectives [93]. As a result, HE leaders and managers need to be able to enliven and motivate their staff members in both managerial and intellectual domains to engage them in group processes, activities, and decisions that will guarantee appropriate output and standards of quality within the organization. Research on leader-subordinate interactions in organizational behavior has shown that trust fostered by a leader affects employee commitment, performance, and satisfaction [87, 94].

In HEIs, although not widely found to be used, studies have shown that compared to ethical, servant, and transformational leadership, inclusive leadership is the most effective style for managing diversity because it is built upon influence-based relationships [11, 95]. According to the literature, inclusive leadership in HEIs increases performance, by promoting knowledge sharing and open discussion of different perspectives [14, 56]. Still, research indicates that only one in three HEI leaders accurately perceives their capacity for inclusive leadership [20]. A third of people think they are more inclusive than people around them think they are, while the other third do not think they can be an inclusive leader because they do not mentor others and challenge the status quo as much as they can to let their subordinates perceive they can support them towards achieving their developmental goals [14, 88]. The literature suggests that academic leaders/managers (i.e., Deans, Head of Departments) are faced with challenges towards their inclusive approach, which is a critical reason for the disparities in their views. Nevertheless, the research advises managers and leaders to foster followers’ psychological safety “through trust” so that they feel free to express their thoughts and participate in group initiatives or organizational change rather than undervaluing their colleagues’ talents [74]. Cooperative behavior, a network-based strategy, improved work outputs, and problem-solving are all made possible by trust [96]. Furthermore, trust reduces the probability of disagreements, minimizes transaction costs, facilitates the swift formation of ad hoc groups, and promotes the creation of effective crisis management plans. Since there is no single definition of inclusive leadership that is accepted by all, this chapter focuses on expanding on a previous definition that indicates that inclusive leadership is a style of leadership that ensures team members are treated fairly and with respect, are motivated to be creative in their work, and are free to voice their opinions, even when they conflict with those of the organization or other people [88]. Thus, the authors go on to say that inclusive leadership is that which encourages academics to be distinctive, fortifies their sense of belonging to the HEI, and persuades academics to endorse the HEI’s endeavors and contributions to their advancement [55].

In their study, Allen and Grisaffe made the case that academic loyalty is the psychological state that underlies the interaction between academics and HEIs and influences their choice to stay on staff [97]. Previous research suggests that academics considered their positions as permanent positions after they were hired, and administrators demanded unwavering devotion to the institution [98]. However, as HEIs started to experience globalization, the concept of academic loyalty changed. Restructuring brought about internationalization, which resulted in partnerships both locally and internationally, and relocations, which led to the reduction of academic staff due to a variety of needs [98]. Since lifetime employment and devotion are no longer required, the difficulties’ manifestation has caused a divergence in the obligations that HEIs have to their academics [76].

The internal dimension of employee loyalty, according to Metha et al., is focused on the emotional component (i.e., the sense of caring, affiliation, and commitment), which is said to be the dimension that managers and employers need to foster and appeal to [98]. The research also suggested that loyalty’s exterior manifestation—that is, its emotional component—comes in the form of behaviors [77, 98]. Furthermore, pertinent research on the relationship between organizational leadership and job satisfaction showed that supportive, non-authoritarian leadership is positively correlated with workplace atmosphere, job happiness, productivity, and loyalty to the organization [99]. In essence, leadership enhances performance by creating an environment in the workplace where workers feel encouraged to grow and achieve their objectives. Therefore, it can be argued that there is a higher chance of increased productivity in settings where academics view leadership as non-authoritative, participatory, inclusion-based, and open to supporting teaching and research activities within that institution. This effect can also extend to the retention of academics and their loyalty to the institution. This is founded on studies showing that a 10% rise in the feeling of inclusion raises employees’ levels of loyalty, value orientation, and job attendance [100]. Therefore, it can be argued that academics become less loyal to the institution and are more likely to look for full- or part-time employment on contractual bases with other HEIs when they feel undervalued, and the leadership is closed off to and unsupportive of their growth goals and objectives.

Four primary factors are utilized to measure the ratings, according to a review of the literature on global HEI rankings: academic performance, research output, faculty quality, and educational quality [101]. Research has also shown that HEIs may not be able to meet these four primary requirements for good evaluations and high rankings if they do not foster an academic culture that encourages faculty loyalty [102, 103]. Likewise, according to Marconi and Ritze, there is a favorable correlation between a HEI’s rankings and a number of variables that could affect academics’ work satisfaction and loyalty, such as the HEI’s size, mission, cost per student, and productivity [104]. The study further emphasized the need for academics to have high levels of loyalty and job satisfaction for a HEI to attain productive efficiency [104].

5. Conclusion

This chapter focused on the relationship between inclusive leadership, perceived institutional support (PIS), and academic loyalty. This is because, despite the impressive development within the discipline of leadership, the evolution in HE vis-à-vis tertiary education, and the influence of leadership on the innovativeness of HEIs, there remained gaps to be explored, particularly the perceived impasse regarding how research on concepts of inclusion has been conducted in HE environments.

Based on the OS theory, the chapter recontextualized knowledge on the POS focused on organization to the PIS to focus on HEIs. Therefore, the PIS assumes that academics represent the HEI, deduce how much the HEI values their contributions and is concerned about their well-being, and return this perceived support with greater dedication, performance, and loyalty. This chapter adds to the literature on the PIS and its relationship with inclusive leadership towards academic loyalty, similar to studies that investigated the role of POS in the relationship between different forms of favorable treatment and outcomes that are advantageous to employees and the organization. However, to provide the needed grounded understanding of the effect of inclusive leadership in HEI, we provided background knowledge on EDI through the review of relevant literature.

Leaders play a crucial role in establishing norms and regulations within HEIs. As such, their attributes, such as inclusion, can greatly impact employees’ impressions of institutional support. This chapter, with the continuous evolution in HE and tertiary education, will help HEI leaders and managers recognize the influence of inclusive leadership on PIS and its corresponding effect on the loyalty of academics. HEIs and centers of innovation and with increasing innovation comes evolution, therefore, to ensure consistency they require loyalty from their academics towards achieving the vision, mission, and objectives of the institution. To achieve this, HEIs’ leadership must ensure they apply inclusive strategies to increase PIS, which in turn will impact academic loyalty. Furthermore, this chapter provides an increased understanding towards PIS based on its antecedents (i.e., fairness, line manager support, institutional rewards and job conditions, and job security) and consequences (i.e., institutional commitment; job-related affection, job involvement, performance, strains, and academic loyalty). For instance, where the level of inclusive leadership is low, the positive influence of equality and diversity practices on the academics’ perceptions would be eroded, thus impacting negatively on the innovativeness of the institution. In other words, academics are likely to view the degree of inclusive leadership as a useful indicator for determining the authenticity of their institution’s inclusion values. Therefore, top management in departments and faculties in HEIs must not only understand the need to increase the loyalty of their academics based on the effect of PIS but it should be grounded on the degree of inclusive leadership.