How to Become More Inclusive at Work: The Conversations Nobody Wants to Have

Connect with us: LinkedIn | Medium | Quora | GitHub | Reddit Community

Three months ago, I watched a perfectly capable project manager get passed over for promotion because she "didn't fit the culture." What they really meant was she wasn't one of the lads who went for beers every Friday. That's when it hit me - after 18 years in workplace training, I've been dancing around the real issue.

Inclusiveness isn't about ticking diversity boxes or attending mandatory workshops where everyone nods politely. It's about fundamentally changing how we communicate, think, and operate. And frankly, most organisations are getting it spectacularly wrong.

The Problem With Feel-Good Inclusiveness Training

Here's an unpopular opinion: 80% of workplace inclusion training is complete rubbish. Companies bring in consultants who deliver sanitised presentations about "celebrating differences" while completely ignoring the systemic communication barriers that actually exclude people.

I've sat through dozens of these sessions. Everyone gets a certificate, HR ticks the compliance box, and absolutely nothing changes. The same people still dominate meetings. The same groups still get the best projects. The same voices still go unheard.

Real inclusiveness starts with recognising that different people communicate differently. Some cultures view direct contradiction as disrespectful. Others find small talk before meetings uncomfortable. Some neurodivergent colleagues need written agendas in advance, not last-minute "quick catchups."

But here's the thing nobody talks about - inclusion requires the majority to actually change their behaviour. And change is bloody uncomfortable.

Why Australian Workplaces Struggle More Than They Should

Look, we pride ourselves on being easy-going and egalitarian. "She'll be right, mate" is practically our national workplace motto. But that laid-back attitude can actually exclude people who come from more formal communication cultures.

I worked with a brilliant Indonesian engineer who had incredible technical insights but rarely spoke in team meetings. Not because he didn't have opinions - because in his culture, you don't interrupt senior colleagues or speak unless specifically asked. Meanwhile, the Aussie team members were constantly jumping in with half-formed thoughts, talking over each other, making jokes during serious discussions.

Guess whose ideas never got heard?

This engineer wasn't being "shy" or "disengaged" - he was following his deeply ingrained communication protocols. The solution wasn't to tell him to "speak up more." It was to change how we ran meetings entirely.

The Communication Styles That Actually Matter

Forget the personality tests and colour-coded behavioural models. Here are the communication differences that genuinely impact inclusion:

High-context vs Low-context communicators. Some people say exactly what they mean. Others embed meaning in tone, context, and what they don't say. When you've got both types in a meeting, miscommunication is guaranteed.

Hierarchy-conscious vs Egalitarian styles. Some colleagues expect clear authority structures and formal processes. Others prefer collaborative, flat decision-making. Neither approach is wrong, but they clash constantly.

Process-focused vs Outcome-focused thinking. Some people need to understand the journey before they can commit to the destination. Others want to know the end goal and figure out the path later.

I've seen projects fail spectacularly because teams couldn't bridge these fundamental communication gaps. And then management wonders why their "diverse" team isn't performing.

The Meeting Revolution Nobody Asked For

Here's where I'll probably lose half my readers: we need to completely redesign how meetings work. Yes, it's disruptive. Yes, it feels forced initially. But it's the fastest way to create genuinely inclusive communication.

Start with structured communication training that goes beyond surface-level politeness. Teach people to recognise and adapt to different communication styles. Not to judge them, not to "fix" them, but to work with them effectively.

Then implement what I call "rotation protocols." Different meeting styles for different purposes. Some meetings have structured speaking orders. Others use silent brainstorming followed by discussion. Some start with individual preparation time. Others are purely conversational.

The goal isn't to accommodate everyone perfectly - that's impossible. It's to ensure everyone gets opportunities to contribute in ways that align with their communication strengths.

The Feedback Minefield

Let's talk about performance feedback - the area where inclusion efforts usually crash and burn. Most Australian managers give feedback like they're chatting with their mates over coffee. Casual, indirect, loaded with assumptions about shared cultural references.

"You need to be more assertive in client meetings" sounds helpful. But what does "assertive" actually mean? For some cultures, eye contact and firm handshakes signal confidence. For others, these behaviours seem aggressive or disrespectful.

I worked with a Malaysian marketing coordinator who received feedback that she was "too quiet" in presentations. Her manager suggested she "be more animated" and "show more personality." Completely missing the fact that in her communication style, calm professionalism was a sign of competence, not disengagement.

The solution? Get specific. Instead of "be more assertive," try "I'd like you to ask at least two clarifying questions during client presentations" or "When presenting recommendations, start with your strongest point first."

Workplace communication training should focus on translating vague cultural expectations into concrete, actionable behaviours. Otherwise, you're just asking people to guess what you want.

The Silent Killers of Inclusive Communication

Nobody talks about the small, daily exclusions that add up over time. The inside jokes that reference last night's football match. The assumption that everyone celebrates Christmas. The "quick decision" made in the lift between floors.

These moments seem trivial individually. Collectively, they signal who belongs and who doesn't.

I remember a team where three colleagues regularly continued work discussions during their cigarette breaks. Non-smokers were systematically excluded from informal decision-making. When someone finally raised it, the smokers were genuinely surprised - they hadn't realised they were creating an inner circle.

Here's my controversial take: inclusion requires conscious effort to be slightly less natural in your communication. You need to pause and think about who's in the room, who's not, and how your words land with different people.

It's exhausting initially. Like learning any new skill. But it becomes automatic with practice.

The Technology Trap

Don't get me started on how digital communication platforms are making inclusion harder, not easier. Slack channels that move too fast for non-native English speakers to follow. Video calls where cultural differences in eye contact create awkward dynamics. Emoji reactions that mean completely different things across generations.

We've optimised for speed and efficiency, not for inclusive participation. The result? The same communication barriers, just delivered through different channels.

The answer isn't more technology - it's more intentional design of how we use the technology we've got.

What Actually Works (And What Doesn't)

After nearly two decades of trial and error, here's what creates genuinely inclusive communication:

Clear, explicit processes. When everyone knows exactly how decisions get made, meetings get run, and feedback gets delivered, cultural communication differences become manageable rather than divisive.

Multiple input channels. Some people think out loud. Others need reflection time. Some communicate best in writing. Others prefer face-to-face conversation. Create pathways for all of these.

Regular check-ins about the process, not just the content. Ask people how they're finding the communication patterns, not just whether they understand the project requirements.

Leadership modelling inclusive behaviour. This can't be delegated to HR or the diversity committee. Senior people need to visibly change their own communication habits.

What doesn't work? Asking people to "adapt to our culture" while making zero changes to accommodate different communication styles. That's not inclusion - it's assimilation with extra steps.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Change

Here's the part that makes everyone squirm: creating inclusive workplaces requires some people to communicate less naturally and others to stretch beyond their comfort zones. It's not a win-win situation where everyone gets exactly what they prefer.

If you're used to thinking out loud in meetings, you might need to pause and create space for others. If you prefer written communication, you might need to participate in more verbal discussions. If you're accustomed to hierarchical communication, you might need to adjust to flatter structures.

This isn't about political correctness or walking on eggshells. It's about professional effectiveness in diverse teams. And professional effectiveness sometimes requires temporary discomfort while you develop new skills.

The Business Case (Because Everything Needs One)

Look, inclusion training often gets dismissed as "soft skills" that don't impact the bottom line. That's rubbish. Poor communication costs Australian businesses billions annually through project delays, staff turnover, and missed opportunities.

I've seen engineering teams waste months because technical experts couldn't effectively communicate with project managers. Marketing campaigns fail because creative teams couldn't bridge cultural differences with target audiences. Sales opportunities lost because account managers couldn't adapt their communication style to different client preferences.

Effective inclusive leadership training pays for itself within months through improved team performance, reduced miscommunication, and better client relationships.

The companies that figure this out first will have a massive competitive advantage. Not because they're more diverse on paper, but because they can actually harness the communication strengths of their diverse teams.

Moving Beyond Good Intentions

Most inclusion initiatives fail because they focus on attitudes rather than behaviours. You can't mandate that people feel more inclusive. But you can absolutely require that they communicate more inclusively.

This means getting specific about what inclusive communication looks like in your particular workplace. Not generic principles, but concrete practices tailored to your team dynamics, client base, and business objectives.

It means measuring behaviour change, not just satisfaction surveys. Are quieter team members contributing more ideas? Are decisions being made with input from diverse perspectives? Are communication barriers preventing good work from being recognised?

And it means accepting that this is ongoing work, not a one-time training programme. Communication patterns evolve as teams change, markets shift, and new technologies emerge.

The Long Game

After 18 years of watching organisations struggle with this, I'm convinced that the companies that master inclusive communication will dominate their industries. Not because they're more politically correct, but because they can access and leverage a broader range of human capabilities.

The teams that figure out how to blend different communication styles, thinking patterns, and cultural approaches will solve problems faster, serve clients better, and adapt to change more effectively than their homogeneous competitors.

But it requires abandoning the fantasy that inclusion happens naturally through good intentions and casual workplace friendships. It requires systematic, intentional changes to how we structure communication and make decisions.

The question isn't whether your workplace needs more inclusive communication. The question is whether you're willing to do the uncomfortable work of actually creating it.

Because the alternative - continuing to exclude talented people through unconscious communication barriers - is a luxury that fewer organisations can afford.