Rewiring the System: Regenerating Inclusion in Leadership Pipelines
For CIOs and transformation leaders, the message is less about another inclusion campaign and more about operating model design. If leadership pipelines keep leaking, the organisation is signalling that promotion, succession and reward processes are misaligned with the capabilities the business says it values. That is a governance problem as much as a talent problem: who owns the outcomes, which executives are accountable, and where do decision rights sit when โinclusive leadershipโ conflicts with legacy norms?
The practical trade-off is focus versus breadth. Systems-level change can improve fairness and bench strength, but it also risks becoming diffuse if it is not tied to a small number of business-critical decisions. Leaders should ask which points in the pipeline most shape future capability: shortlists, stretch assignments, international mobility, sponsorship, performance calibration or succession planning. Those are the places where bias, convenience and old assumptions quietly compound into strategic risk. The management question is not whether inclusion matters, but which interventions are material enough to change outcomes.
Measurement matters, but only if it is decision-useful. Counting representation alone will not reveal whether the organisation is building broader leadership capacity. A stronger portfolio view links inclusion to promotion velocity, retention of high-potential talent, access to stretch roles, and the quality of succession benches. Next questions for executives: Where are the largest drop-offs? Which leaders are rewarded for reproducing the status quo? Which processes need redesign, and which need stricter accountability? Without those answers, culture work remains commentary rather than change.
โFor years we have invested so much time, resources and effort at D&I, and yet, when we look at the outcomes, we donโt have leadership benches that provide diversity of talent, thought and experience, so we have to ask the question โ why is it so hard to turn the dial on this? Why is it so difficult to do?โThat question lit a fire and became the catalyst for deep exploration into how traditional inclusion strategies can be reimagined.ย We were so intrigued by the strength of debate that we embedded this very question into our interviews with the study participants. Our findings revealed a general consensus:ย leaders are of the view that currently, EDI is often (a) poorly understood (b) perceived as top-down and imposed (c) seen as a โsticking-plasterโ (d) ineffective at promoting systemic change and (e) does not enjoy the support or buy-in of all stakeholders.ย We find leaders are searching for ways to regenerate, revitalise, and reform their approaches โ in ways that build stronger leadership benches and promote strength and unity through diverse talent. The impetus is coming from within.
New Ways of Seeing, Thinking, and Doing
What could help us shift the dial?ย We suggest one way forward lies in taking a systemic regenerative approach.ย This means changing the direction of the lens.ย We need to look at ourselves, our organisation, our systems, and the culture that defines us, and having seen our reflections we need to be committed to build anew from the inside-out. Culture was in fact a constant theme to emerge from our work. As one leader in a City of London finance multinational put it:โThe high ideals written into traditional EDI strategies often flounce and fail when they meet the hard realities of โon the ground culturesโ โ it all comes back to our culture.โTalking about culture presents an immediate problem, because โcultureโ is in itself a highly contested term, considered by many practitioners to be a โflakyโ concept which is difficult to grasp. Our view is that culture is nebulous but can be โmade realโ.ย Looking at it through the lens of McKinseyโs famous 7S model โ Structure, Systems, Strategy, Style, Staff, Skills, Shared Values โ is a good place to start. These seven elements form the backbone of organisational culture. When misaligned, they often work against the building of strong, robust, and diverse leadership benches. For example, letโs take S for systems, and consider the systems we have in place for decisions on promotion and reward. One senior leader in a UK investment bank cites an example where a poor promotion decision was made on the basis of perception:
โThe perception was that the two women shortlisted would not be able to travel internationally due to childcare. They were the best talent, but the decision was not to promote. Ultimately I think we have lost out and this is bad for business.โStrategy can be another key area of sub-optimal effectiveness. For decades the traditional paradigm in the UK has been the familiar EDI strategy. Our hundreds of hours of conversations with leaders suggest that, however well intentioned, such strategies are often perceived by stakeholders as imposed, as bolt-onโs, and often not horizontally or vertically aligned with other strategies. Very few organisations want to be seen as unfair, or as sites of disadvantage and favouritism. Stakeholders donโt set out to sabotage their organisations and the quest for diverse capability-led leadership talent. However, our research does show that when we look at organisations through the lens of the 7Sโs, they frequently contain multiple sites of disadvantage, favouritism, and decisions that are ultimately bad for business. As one female leader in the engineering sector says: โWeโre often talking about the right thing. Weโre not always doing the right thingโ. So, how can we go about systemic regenerative work on this issue?
From Tinkering to Transformation:ย A Systems Approach
A systems approach offers an alternative: a root-and-branch, holistic method consistent with the principles of regeneration.ย Systems thinking means looking at how everything connects โ from policies and practices to mindsets and values โ and identifying where change needs to happen. Rather than tinkering with processes or tweaking structures, systems thinking, as advocated by Otto Scharmer for example, asks organisations to shift, where necessary, the mindsets and consciousness that shapes decisions. Put simply, to see where change is needed in the way we think about, talk about and โdoโ inclusion. The key stages of a systems approach to inclusion are visualised here:See the system: make headwinds visible
To understand the nature of the headwinds we need to โsee the systemโ and view the web of behaviours, logics, patterns, and practices that hold talent back from progressing. Where are the barriers, how do they manifest, and how do they connect throughout our 7Ss in ways that sustain leaky pipelines? Our research shows headwinds reside within the 7Ss. For example: Style: Leadership norms often favour traditionally masculine traits. Many women (and some men) feel pressured to lead in ways that donโt feel authentic, which can lead to frustration and disengagement. Systems: Promotion criteria may reward constant availability, unintentionally excluding those with different working patterns or responsibilities. Shared values: Inclusion is sometimes seen as HRโs responsibility alone. But real change happens when senior leaders actively champion it, and when everyone understands how they can contribute to these values in their roles. Systems thinking encourages us to explore these areas honestly and thoroughly. Tools like systems mapping can help leaders visualise how these elements connect โ and where the gaps are. Thatโs where meaningful change begins.Sense the system โ feel the tailwinds
Having seen, the next step involves โsensingโ what these pockets of resistance feel like for those affected. This provides the impetus for closing the knowing-doing gap; moving from cognitive knowing that systemic blockages are real and present to empathy that provides the impetus for action. Leaders must feel the system from perspectives other than their own. In practice, this means:- Listening labs where women and under-represented managers share lived experiences of both headwinds and tailwinds โ which find their way into actions for change.
- Story dashboards pairing data with narratives that evoke empathy and insight.
- Cross-gender mentoring and leadership immersions or โlearning journeysโ where executives shadow employeesโ experience barriers firsthand.
Invert the system โ inner work for outer change
Many organisational headwinds endure because leaders attempt change from the same mindset that created the problem. Inverting the system means developing reflective practices that challenge how leaders pay attention, listen, and assign value.- Leadership reflection circles can help senior teams explore the logics that inform their decisions, and the decisions of others.
- Reverse mentoring allows us to see the system through different eyes, exposing unexamined blocks that work against capability led, diverse leadership pipelines.
Recreation through co-creation: turning headwinds into tailwinds
Transformational change emerges when leaders acknowledge the picture that is emerging, and rather than run away from the (uncomfortable) revelations, they step forward and embrace the challenge to regenerate. Pivotal to this regeneration is a commitment to recreate by co-creating the future that wants to emerge, not the past they are trying to fix. This is a crucial step that needs to be genuinely inclusive; because currently our research shows a perception among some stakeholders that traditional EDI paradigms have excluded them. Organisations can establish inclusion labs where stakeholders help to broaden out the scope of inclusion, and prototype ways to unlock the leadership talent of all people. These labs dissect current policies, practices, behaviours (everything visible above the waterline) and reform and regenerate these in ways that are informed by the new knowledge and lessons learnt from the listening steps. In other words, they reveal the unseen stories below the waterline. We saw examples where one organisation created knowledge banks of โstory dashboardsโ which acted as a repository of lived experiences in their firm.ย These were an amazing resource for sharing and informing, and acted as a way-in to change. Itโs difficult not to buy-in to the stories of colleagues! These prototypes can generate regenerative tailwinds โ practices that renew and transform the way we do inclusion strategy, through new insights and new logics.The regenerative payoff
When we apply systems thinking to our headwinds-and-tailwinds framework, a clear message emerges:- Headwinds are maintained by system dynamics โ structures, mental models, and logics that act against the best interests of the organisation by recycling faulty programming.
- Tailwinds strengthen when organisations cultivate awareness, empathy, and co-creation. The aim is to be an environment that jet streams talent in all its diversity; quite simply we rise above poor and uninformed practice.
Hult International Business School and Moving Ahead: 2025. โHeadwinds and Tailwinds: Exploring the experiences of women in the ExCo Pipeline.โ
Scharmer, O. (2016). Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Rewiring the System: Regenerating Inclusion in Leadership Pipelines
Enjoyed this article? Sign up for our newsletter to receive regular insights and stay connected.
