Capable Leaders Are Not Automatically Inclusive.
High-performing directors tend to be driven, curious and willing to challenge. Those same traits can crowd out other voices unless leaders practise inclusion on purpose.
Hiring and appointment decisions often rest on skills and experience. Personality shapes how those skills are used. We measured personality in 66 Asia Pacific non-executive directors using the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (Gosling et al., 2003) and the Short Grit Scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). Scores below are on a seven-point scale (Steel, 2026).
Conscientiousness was very high (M = 6.42) and openness was high (M = 6.02). These directors are structured, diligent and open to new ideas.
Neuroticism was low (M = 2.32), which points to emotional stability.
Agreeableness was low to moderate (M = 2.77). This suggests a willingness to challenge ideas and prioritise outcomes.
Consistency of interest exceeded perseverance of effort on grit, which the study did not expect to be so clear.
This profile has a built-in tension. Low agreeableness helps leaders question weak plans. It can also make colleagues less willing to speak. The directors’ own accounts point to the remedy: curiosity, humility and cultural intelligence, three of the six inclusive leadership behaviours (Bourke & Espedido, 2019). One director described listing their own gaps up front: “here are the things which I don’t know.”
The study proposes inclusive leadership as the mechanism that turns strong individual traits into strong collective decisions. Fostering psychological safety allows high-openness people to share novel ideas and persist through disagreement (Choi et al., 2015). This is a proposed model, not a tested one.
Implication for SMEs. Assess how a candidate leads others, not only what they know. Ask how they invite dissent, how they handle being wrong, and how they adapt to different communication styles. These behaviours are teachable, and they are a direct response to talent risk.
Limits. The reliability of the grit measure was low in this sample (α = 0.49), consistent with earlier findings in collectivist settings (Datu et al., 2016). Grit results should be read with caution.
References
Bourke, J. & Espedido, A. (2019). Why inclusive leaders are good for organizations, and how to become one. Harvard Business Review, 29 March.
Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H. & Park, B. I. (2015). Social Behavior and Personality, 43(6), 931–943.
Datu, J. A. D., Valdez, J. P. M. & King, R. B. (2016). Current Psychology, 35, 121–130.
Duckworth, A. L. & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166–174.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. & Swann, W. B. (2003). Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.
Steel, A. (2026). Inclusion as strategic advantage. In The Handbook of Inclusive Leadership (Ch. 12). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111662145-013
