This study is situated within technology-based financial service start-ups (fintech start-ups) in Indonesia. Fintech organisations provide a salient context for examining inclusive leadership as they operate at the intersection of advanced digitalisation, regulatory scrutiny and rapid organisational growth, conditions that intensify the need for employee voice, innovation and adaptive leadership (Gong et al., 2021; Vallabh et al., 2024). These conditions also create tensions between flexibility and control, making inclusion not only a relational practice but also a constrained and context-dependent one. Prior research indicates that technology-driven and start-up sectors tend to adopt more progressive inclusion and diversity practices than traditional industries, supported by flatter hierarchies, collaborative work structures and younger workforces (Leslie et al., 2021).

Within Indonesia, the fintech sector has similarly been identified as proactive in promoting inclusive and participative leadership practices, positioning inclusivity as both a normative value and a strategic resource in a competitive labour market (Chapano et al., 2022; Zain et al., 2025). At the same time, Indonesian organisational contexts are often characterised by relatively higher power distance and collectivist orientations, which may shape how employees interpret leadership behaviours and exercise voice. These sectoral characteristics render fintech start-ups a theoretically appropriate setting for examining inclusive leadership as a practice enacted through everyday managerial action rather than formalised policy alone (Roberson & Perry, 2022) while also highlighting the role of cultural and structural constraints in shaping inclusion practices.

In addition to its sectoral relevance, this study focuses on Generation Z employees as the primary unit of analysis. Gen Z employees, typically defined as individuals born from the mid-to-late 1990s onwards, now constitute a substantial and growing proportion of the workforce in fintech and other digital industries (Deloitte, 2025). Prior studies suggest that this cohort places heightened emphasis on inclusion, authenticity, psychological safety and opportunities to voice ideas and contribute meaningfully at work (Francis & Hoefel, 2018; Schroth, 2019).

Compared with earlier generations, Gen Z employees are characterised by stronger expectations of leadership transparency, relational support and value alignment, alongside lower tolerance for exclusionary practices and hierarchical distance (Schroth, 2019). These characteristics may intensify the demand for inclusive leadership while simultaneously exposing tensions when organisational constraints limit the extent to which voice can be enacted. These characteristics render Gen Z employees particularly sensitive to how inclusive leadership is enacted in everyday managerial interactions, making them a theoretically meaningful group for examining inclusion as an interpreted workplace experience rather than as a formal organisational attribute (Dhanani et al., 2024).

The purpose of this study is to develop a context-sensitive understanding of how inclusive leadership operates in everyday organisational practice and how it shapes employee experiences and work-related outcomes. Rather than treating inclusive leadership as a fixed set of leader behaviours with linear effects, this study foregrounds employees’ experiential accounts and meaning-making processes in order to explain how inclusion is enacted, interpreted and mobilised in work contexts characterised by competing demands and organisational constraints.

The purpose of this study is to develop a context-sensitive understanding of how inclusive leadership operates in everyday organisational practice and how it shapes employee experiences and work-related outcomes. Rather than treating inclusive leadership as a fixed set of leader behaviours with linear effects, this study foregrounds employees’ experiential accounts and meaning-making processes in order to explain how inclusion is enacted, interpreted and mobilised in work contexts characterised by competing demands and organisational constraints.

Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research questions: (1) How is inclusive leadership enacted in everyday managerial practices, and under what conditions do employees perceive these practices as enabling or constraining their voice and participation at work?; (2) How do employees construct meaning from their experiences of inclusive leadership, and how do these meaning-making processes shape their well-being, sense of role alignment and engagement within everyday work contexts? and (3) How do employees perceive inclusive leadership as supporting incremental innovation and adaptive performance within organisational constraints?

To address these questions, the study pursues three interrelated objectives. Firstly, it seeks to explore how inclusive leadership is enacted in routine managerial interactions and to identify the conditions that shape employees’ perceptions of voice and participation. Secondly, it aims to examine how employees interpret and make sense of inclusive leadership experiences and how these interpretations influence wellbeing, role alignment, and engagement within organisational contexts. Thirdly, it aims to develop an empirically grounded understanding of how inclusive leadership is perceived to support employee voice and incremental innovation within Indonesian fintech start-ups.

Inclusive leadership has emerged as a prominent leadership paradigm in response to increasing workforce diversity, complex organisational environments and growing expectations for fairness and participation at work (Roberson & Perry, 2022; Zheng et al., 2025b). Conceptually, inclusive leadership is commonly defined as a pattern of leader behaviours characterised by openness, accessibility and availability, through which leaders actively invite and value employee contributions while ensuring that individuals feel respected and included (Nishii & Leroy, 2020; Randel et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2010). Unlike traditional leadership models that emphasise directive control or uniform treatment, inclusive leadership foregrounds relational processes and everyday interactions through which inclusion is enacted (Atewologun & Harman, 2020).

Early theoretical work positioned inclusion as a dual experience of belongingness and uniqueness, suggesting that employees are most likely to thrive when they feel accepted as insiders while simultaneously recognised for their distinct perspectives and contributions (Shore et al., 2010). Building on this foundation, subsequent studies conceptualised inclusive leadership as a critical antecedent of inclusive climates, employee voice and discretionary behaviours, particularly in knowledge-intensive and team-based work settings (Nishii & Leroy, 2020; Randel et al., 2018; Roberson & Perry, 2022).

A substantial body of empirical research links inclusive leadership to employee voice, defined as discretionary communication of ideas, concerns or suggestions intended to improve organisational functioning (Morrison, 2014). Inclusive leaders are argued to legitimise voice by signalling openness to input, reducing fear of negative consequences and fostering psychological safety (Choi et al., 2017; Fatoki, 2024; Qi et al., 2019). Quantitative studies consistently demonstrate that inclusive leadership predicts voice behaviour through mediating mechanisms such as psychological safety, trust and perceived leader support (Li & Tang, 2022; Qi et al., 2019).

However, this stream of research largely conceptualises voice as an outcome variable and relies on survey-based measures that capture general perceptions rather than situated interactions. As a result, less is known about how employees decide when, how and under what conditions to speak up in response to inclusive leadership behaviours in everyday work contexts (Bao et al., 2022; Randel et al., 2018). Recent scholars have therefore called for more fine-grained and qualitative examinations of voice as a socially embedded and context-dependent process, rather than a static behavioural outcome (Roberson & Perry, 2022). Moreover, existing studies often overlook how organisational constraints shape the extent to which voice can be expressed, underscoring the need to examine voice as a negotiated, context-dependent process.

Beyond voice, inclusive leadership has been associated with a range of employee well-being and engagement outcomes. Empirical studies suggest that inclusive leaders contribute to employee well-being by creating environments characterised by fairness, support and psychological safety, which in turn reduce emotional exhaustion and enhance work engagement (Choi et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2019; Umrani et al., 2024). Inclusive leadership has also been linked to greater person–job fit, role clarity and affective commitment, particularly in dynamic and collaborative work settings (Choi et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2025).

Despite these insights, most of the existing studies treat well-being and engagement as relatively stable psychological states measured at a single point in time. This perspective overlooks the possibility that well-being and engagement are shaped by everyday leadership interactions, changing work demands and evolving interpretations of inclusion (Dhanani et al., 2024). Moreover, employees are often positioned as passive recipients of leadership behaviours rather than as active sense makers who interpret and negotiate inclusion in light of their roles, identities and career trajectories (Nishii & Leroy, 2020).

Inclusive leadership is frequently positioned as a catalyst for innovation and performance. By encouraging diverse perspectives and legitimising dissenting views, inclusive leaders are believed to enhance creativity, innovative work behaviour and ultimately individual and team performance (Gong et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2023; Qi et al., 2019). Empirical studies support this argument, showing that inclusive leadership predicts innovation through mechanisms such as intrinsic motivation, psychological empowerment, leader–member exchange and knowledge sharing (Gong et al., 2021; Li & Tang, 2022).

However, prior research predominantly adopts a linear mediation logic, focusing on whether inclusive leadership leads to innovation and performance rather than how such outcomes emerge over time. This approach provides limited insight into the dynamic processes through which experiences of inclusion are translated into concrete innovative actions, particularly in contexts characterised by regulatory constraints, competing priorities or resource limitations (Gong et al., 2021; Xin et al., 2024). Consequently, the micro-processes linking inclusive leadership to sustained performance remain insufficiently theorised.

Across these streams of literature, a common limitation is the predominance of outcome-oriented and variable-centred models. While these approaches have established the relevance of inclusive leadership, they offer limited explanatory power regarding how inclusion is enacted, interpreted and sustained in everyday organisational life (Roberson & Perry, 2022). Process-oriented perspectives emphasise that leadership and employee experiences are shaped through ongoing interactions and interpretations within organisational contexts, rather than through static relationships between variables (Langley et al., 2013).

Qualitative inquiry is particularly well suited to addressing these limitations, as it enables researchers to capture participants’ experiential accounts, identify patterns of meaning and develop interpretive understandings of organisational phenomena. Recent reviews of inclusive leadership research have explicitly called for qualitative and process-based studies that move beyond cross-sectional designs and examine inclusion as a dynamic and contextually embedded phenomenon (Bao et al., 2022; Umrani et al., 2024).

Existing research demonstrates that inclusive leadership is consistently associated with employee voice, well-being, innovation and performance across a range of organisational settings (Bao et al., 2022; Choi et al., 2017; Qi et al., 2019; Umrani et al., 2024). Foundational theories of inclusion emphasise that these outcomes are most likely to emerge when employees simultaneously experience belongingness and recognition of their uniqueness, supported through fair and respectful interactions with leaders (Nishii & Leroy, 2020; Shore et al., 2010).

At the same time, the literature remains limited in its explanation of how such outcomes are produced through everyday managerial practices and employee sensemaking. The dominant emphasis on stable constructs, cross-sectional designs and linear mediation models privileges aggregate perceptions over situated interactions and contextual interactions, thereby obscuring the interactional patterns through which inclusive leadership is enacted and experienced in daily work (Bao et al., 2022; Randel et al., 2018; Roberson & Perry, 2022). Scholars have increasingly argued that understanding inclusion requires closer attention to interactional processes, interpretive work by employees and contextual constraints shaping behaviour within organisational contexts (Adamson et al., 2021; Umrani et al., 2024).

To address these limitations, this study adopts a qualitative, process-oriented perspective that foregrounds employees’ experiential accounts and meaning-making processes. By examining inclusive leadership as it is experienced and interpreted in everyday work interactions, the study seeks to extend inclusive leadership scholarship beyond outcome-focused explanations towards a more context-sensitive understanding of how inclusion is perceived and enacted in contemporary organisations (Adamson et al., 2021; Nishii & Leroy, 2020).

This study adopts a qualitative research approach to develop a context-sensitive understanding of how inclusive leadership is enacted and experienced by employees in everyday organisational contexts. Given the study’s aim to explore patterns of meaning and interpret employee experiences rather than test predefined hypotheses, a reflexive thematic analysis approach was employed (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022; Langley et al., 2013).

Reflexive thematic analysis is particularly suitable for examining complex and contextually embedded phenomena, as it enables the identification and interpretation of patterns of meaning across qualitative datasets while remaining sensitive to participants’ experiential accounts and the researcher’s interpretive role (Braun & Clarke, 2022). This approach aligns with the study’s focus on understanding inclusive leadership as an everyday, interactional and processual phenomenon.

Although reflexive thematic analysis is frequently applied to richer qualitative materials such as interviews and focus groups, Braun and Clarke (2022) note that the approach can also be appropriately applied to qualitative survey data when the aim is to identify and interpret shared patterns of meaning across participants’ accounts. In this study, the open-ended survey responses were relatively concise at the individual level, but collectively provided a large and diverse dataset that enabled comparative interpretation across participants’ experiences. Accordingly, the analysis focused less on developing highly detailed individual narratives and more on identifying recurring experiential and interpretive patterns related to inclusive leadership in context.

Accordingly, the research strategy was inductive and iterative in data analysis, involving repeated engagement with the dataset, coding, theme development and refinement to capture patterns of meaning across participants’ experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Given that data were collected at a single point in time through open-ended responses, the analysis did not involve theoretical sampling or iterative data collection; instead, it focused on depth of interpretation across a large qualitative dataset.

The research was conducted within Indonesian technology-based financial service start-ups (fintech start-ups). Fintech organisations are characterised by rapid growth, digitalised work processes and heightened regulatory oversight, making them a theoretically relevant setting for examining leadership practices under conditions of innovation pressure and organisational constraint (Benitez et al., 2022; Gong et al., 2021).

Entry into the research setting was established through online professional and social networks, reflecting the digitally mediated and distributed nature of work in fintech environments. Online recruitment has been widely recognised as an effective strategy for reaching dispersed digitally native populations, particularly younger cohorts and knowledge workers (Wright, 2005). Rather than negotiating access through formal organisational gatekeepers, this study adopted an open recruitment strategy to minimise organisational influence on participation and to encourage candid reflection on leadership experiences (Tracy, 2010).

Throughout the study, the researcher adopted a reflexive role, remaining attentive to positionality, assumptions and interpretive influence during data collection and analysis. Reflexive memo writing was used to document analytic decisions and evolving interpretive insights (Charmaz, 2014; Tracy, 2010). Reflexivity is particularly important in qualitative research, as it acknowledges the researcher’s role in knowledge production rather than assuming analytic neutrality.

Given the anonymised and non-interactive nature of the dataset, reflexivity in this study was enacted primarily through iterative engagement with coding decisions, memo writing and critical reflection on how interpretive assumptions shaped theme development, rather than through co-constructed interaction with participants. The researcher repeatedly revisited the dataset to examine variations in interpretation, refine thematic boundaries, and remain attentive to how broader theoretical assumptions influenced analytical interpretation.

The research participants were Generation Z employees working at Indonesian fintech start-ups at the time of data collection. Generation Z is commonly defined as individuals born from the mid-to-late 1990s onwards (Schroth, 2019). This cohort has been shown to place heightened emphasis on inclusion, authenticity and opportunities for voice at work, rendering them a theoretically meaningful group for examining inclusive leadership practices (Deloitte, 2025; Schroth, 2019).

An initial purposive sampling strategy was employed to ensure the relevance and depth of participants’ experiences (Patton, 2015). To be included in the study, participants were required to: (1) belong to Generation Z and have at least 3 months of work experience, ensuring sufficient exposure to leadership practices; (2) be employed in fintech start-up organisations in Indonesia and (3) hold full-time employment status to ensure sustained engagement within organisational leadership structures.

Given the study’s aim to capture patterns of meaning across a broad range of employee experiences, a relatively large qualitative sample (N = 138) was considered appropriate. Rather than prioritising extended individual narratives, the study prioritised breadth and variation across roles, functions and organisational contexts, enabling the identification of recurring themes and shared patterns of experience. This approach is consistent with reflexive thematic analysis, which can accommodate larger qualitative datasets, enhancing analytical richness and pattern recognition across participants (Braun & Clarke, 2022).

In total, data were collected from 138 participants occupying diverse functional roles across operations, software engineering and information technology (IT), finance and accounting, marketing and communication, customer service and relations and risk, compliance and human resources. Participants varied in gender, educational background, length of employment and hierarchical position and were geographically distributed across multiple provinces in Indonesia. This diversity supported the identification of patterns across varied organisational contexts and contributed to the robustness of thematic interpretation. Participant characteristics are summarised in Table 1.

Data were collected using an online survey comprising open-ended questions designed to elicit participants’ experiences and reflections on inclusive leadership in their daily work contexts. The questions were informed by prior studies on inclusive leadership and employee voice (e.g. Agherdien, 2025; Jaya et al., 2026) and were adapted to encourage descriptive and experience-based responses rather than short factual answers.

Example questions included: (1) Describe the most recent situation in which your supervisor encouraged your ideas or suggestions. What did you propose, and how was the idea followed up on or responded to? (2) When you need clarification regarding work priorities (e.g. conflicting sprint targets or ad-hoc tasks), how easy is it to approach your supervisor? Please provide a concrete example. (3) During the past 3–6 months, when did your work feel most energising or meaningful? What factors contributed to this experience (e.g. user impact, team support, autonomy)? The length of responses typically ranged from three to eight sentences, allowing participants to provide short but meaningful accounts of their experiences. While individual responses were relatively concise compared to interview data, the dataset as a whole provided sufficient variation and repetition to support the identification of patterns across participants’ experiences.

The survey was administered via Google Forms (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, California, United States) and disseminated through multiple social media platforms, including Instagram, X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Social media–based recruitment has been shown to be effective for reaching Generation Z and other digitally active populations across organisational and geographic boundaries (Deloitte, 2025; Kosinski et al., 2015). Participation was voluntary and anonymous to reduce social desirability bias and encourage openness in responses (Tracy, 2010). All responses were automatically recorded and stored in a secure digital format. Survey responses were collected primarily in Bahasa Indonesia to ensure that participants could express their experiences comfortably and naturally in their preferred language. Coding and initial thematic development were conducted using the original Indonesian responses prior to translation into English for reporting purposes. During the analysis and manuscript preparation stages, selected excerpts and illustrative quotations were translated into English by the researcher. To preserve interpretive consistency, the translation focused on retaining contextual meaning and participants’ intent rather than producing literal, word-for-word translations. The researcher repeatedly compared translated excerpts with the original Indonesian responses during coding and interpretation to minimise meaning distortion and maintain conceptual accuracy.

The data were subsequently exported for analysis, with identifying information removed to ensure confidentiality and ethical integrity (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The dataset was organised and coded manually using Microsoft Excel, which facilitated systematic data management, coding and the development of themes across the dataset. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the research process, and all data were reported in a manner that prevented the identification of individual participants or organisations.

Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, following the principles outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2022). This approach enabled the identification and interpretation of patterns of meaning across participants’ accounts while remaining attentive to context, variation and the researcher’s interpretive role (Braun & Clarke, 2022). The analysis began with repeated and iterative familiarisation with the dataset, during which all responses were read multiple times to identify initial patterns of meaning and points of analytical interest (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This was followed by inductive coding, where segments of text were coded in relation to leadership practices, employee interpretations and work-related experiences. Coding was conducted manually using Microsoft Excel, allowing for systematic organisation of responses and comparison across participants (Nowell et al., 2017).

As coding progressed, codes were iteratively examined and grouped into broader patterns of shared meaning, leading to the development of preliminary themes. These themes were subsequently refined by reviewing their coherence and distinctiveness in relation to both the coded data and the dataset as a whole, ensuring that they captured not only recurring experiences but also variation across participants and organisational contexts (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Themes were then defined and articulated to reflect their contribution to understanding inclusive leadership as an everyday, interactional and context-sensitive phenomenon, before being integrated into a coherent analytical narrative explaining how leadership practices were experienced and interpreted by participants in relation to well-being, innovation and performance (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Nowell et al., 2017).

Throughout the analytic process, a reflexive stance was maintained, with the researcher actively engaging with the data, revisiting interpretations and documenting analytic decisions through memo writing to enhance transparency and coherence (Braun & Clarke, 2022; Tracy, 2010). Given that data were collected at a single point in time through open-ended survey responses, the study did not involve iterative data collection, theoretical sampling or participant recontact. Instead, analytical depth was achieved through systematic engagement with a large and diverse qualitative dataset, enabling the identification of recurring patterns of meaning across participants’ experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Given the relatively concise nature of the survey responses, analytical depth was pursued through iterative comparison across participants and thematic refinement rather than through immersion in extended individual narratives.

Trustworthiness was ensured through several strategies to enhance the credibility and rigour of the analysis, including repeated and iterative engagement with the dataset, iterative coding and theme refinement and the use of reflexive memo writing to document analytic decisions and interpretations (Braun & Clarke, 2022; Nowell et al., 2017; Tracy, 2010). In addition, attention was given to capturing both recurring patterns and variations across participants’ experiences, thereby strengthening the richness and trustworthiness of the findings.

Ethical clearance was granted by the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Tanjungpura (Approval No. Page 14 of 16 Original Research http://www.sajhrm.co.za Open Access 74/DST/UN22.2/TU.00.01/2026; 02 February 2026). Participation was voluntary and based on informed consent. Participants were informed of the study purpose, data use and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured through de-identification and secure data storage, and the study posed no physical, psychological or employment-related risk to participants.

Across the dataset, inclusive leadership was primarily experienced through routine managerial practices that actively invited employee voice. Employees consistently described inclusion as something that happened in interaction: When leaders made themselves accessible, listened attentively and engaged constructively with employee input, even when ideas could not be fully implemented.

Beyond participation, employees consistently framed inclusive leadership as a source of psychological validation, feeling heard, respected and recognised as a legitimate contributor. These experiences shaped how employees made sense of their well-being, engagement and perceived fit between their roles and personal strengths.

The third theme captures the dynamic process through which inclusive leadership connects experiences of inclusion to innovative behaviour and performance. Rather than radical or disruptive innovation, employees described incremental, iterative improvement grounded in safe experimentation and learning.

Firstly, the findings illustrate the situational and interactional character of inclusive leadership in everyday organisational practice. Prior research has emphasised inclusive leadership as a set of leader behaviours that encourage voice and openness (Nishii & Leroy, 2020; Randel et al., 2018). While consistent with this literature, the present study suggests that participants experienced inclusion less as a stable leader attribute and more as something emerging episodically through everyday managerial interactions, particularly at moments of tension, such as conflicting priorities, regulatory demands or resource constraints. This aligns with recent arguments that inclusive leadership can be understood as enacted practice rather than solely as attitudinal orientation (Roberson & Perry, 2022; Zheng et al., 2025b).

Employees perceived leadership as inclusive when managers actively invited input, clarified trade-offs and legitimised dialogue under pressure. This suggests that inclusion becomes most salient not in ideal conditions, but precisely when constraints threaten participation, echoing paradox theory perspectives that leadership effectiveness is often revealed in moments of competing demands (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018).

By foregrounding everyday managerial interactions, the study contributes to practice-based perspectives on inclusive leadership by highlighting how employees interpreted inclusion through routine leadership practices (Atewologun & Harman, 2020). Inclusion was less about whether leaders ‘allowed’ voice in principle and more about how they responded when voice was inconvenient, risky or resource intensive. This distinction resonates with scholarship emphasising enacted inclusivity over espoused diversity rhetoric (Roberson & Perry, 2022). These findings suggest the value of examining leadership as situated practice rather than solely as decontextualised behaviour.

Secondly, the findings highlight the importance of employee meaning-making in shaping how inclusive leadership was experienced and interpreted by participants. Rather than directly triggering engagement or performance, inclusive leadership practices were interpreted by employees as signals of recognition, legitimacy and trust. This aligns with sensemaking theory, which posits that individuals construct meaning through ongoing interpretation of cues from authority figures and organisational contexts (Weick et al., 2005).

Participants commonly associated these interpretations with feelings of psychological safety and role alignment, which were linked with well-being and continued engagement in everyday work contexts (Choi et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2019). While prior studies have statistically modelled psychological safety as a mediator (Bao et al., 2022; Li & Tang, 2022), the findings indicate that participants retrospectively associated psychological safety with recurring experiences of supportive managerial interaction, reinforcing recent calls to examine inclusion as an experiential and context-dependent phenomenon (Dhanani et al., 2024).

Importantly, meaning-making was not limited to affective responses such as feeling valued; it also involved interpretive judgements about whether one’s role ‘made sense’ within the organisation. This reflects identity-based perspectives on inclusion, in which belongingness and uniqueness must align with perceived contributions to collective goals (Randel et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2010). When employees perceived alignment between their strengths and organisational purpose, particularly user impact, they reported higher motivation and stronger commitment. Inclusion was therefore experienced by participants as helping connect leadership interactions with feelings of identity alignment and organisational contribution (Weick et al., 2005).

Thirdly, the study contributes to innovation and performance scholarship by illustrating how participants perceived employee voice being translated into adaptive and value-generating contributions within constrained organisational contexts. Prior research has established positive associations between inclusive leadership, innovation and performance (Gong et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2023; Qi et al., 2019), often assuming relatively linear mediation pathways.

In contrast, the findings suggest a recurring pattern in which participants described inclusive leadership as supporting small-scale experimentation, partial implementation and learning-oriented trials. This resonates with research on disciplined experimentation and bounded innovation, which suggests that high-performing organisations innovate through structured adaptation rather than unconstrained creativity (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018).

Crucially, organisational constraints such as regulation, fraud risk and limited resources were not necessarily experienced as negating inclusion. Instead, inclusive leadership was commonly perceived as helping employees navigate these constraints by legitimising incremental innovation and safe experimentation. These findings suggest that participants did not experience inclusion as the absence of control, but rather as leadership that clarified boundaries while still legitimising initiative, consistent with paradoxical leadership perspectives emphasising both flexibility and coordination (Zheng et al., 2025a).

The findings further indicate that participants perceived inclusive leadership as particularly valuable in contexts where organisational constraints required ongoing negotiation, clarification and adaptive coordination. In this respect, the study raises questions about assumptions within parts of the inclusive leadership literature that inclusion is most effective only in highly flexible environments. Instead, participants’ accounts suggest that inclusive leadership may become especially meaningful under constraint, where employees’ capacity to contribute depends on leaders’ ability to legitimise voice, clarify limits and provide interpretive guidance (Roberson & Perry, 2022).

Collectively, these findings offer three interrelated contributions. Accordingly, the novelty of the present study does not lie in introducing entirely new leadership constructs, but in explaining how established constructs are experienced and interpreted within everyday organisational contexts through everyday managerial practices, employee sensemaking and adaptive responses under organisational constraints. Firstly, the findings extend practice-based understandings of inclusive leadership as a practice-based phenomenon enacted through interaction (Atewologun & Harman, 2020). In contrast to prior models that treat inclusive leadership as a set of behaviours producing relatively direct or mediated effects, the findings suggest that participants experienced inclusion through situated managerial practices and employee interpretations within everyday organisational contexts.

Secondly, they position employee meaning-making as an important interpretive dimension linking inclusive leadership to well-being, engagement and performance (Dhanani et al., 2024; Weick et al., 2005). While prior research has treated constructs such as psychological safety or empowerment as mediators, the present study extends prior research by suggesting how these states are actively constructed through ongoing interpretation of leadership practices, rather than functioning as static intervening variables.

Thirdly, they demonstrate that inclusive leadership is compatible with organisational constraints, extending inclusive leadership theory into high-regulation and high-pressure environments (Gong et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2025a). Importantly, the findings highlight a recurring pattern through which participants associated employee voice with incremental innovation and adaptive performance under organisational constraint. This highlights that innovation emerges through adaptive responses within constraints, rather than through unrestricted creativity.

Practically, the findings suggest that inclusion does not depend on symbolic initiatives alone. Instead, consistent micro-practices, accessibility during uncertainty, transparent clarification of trade-offs and legitimisation of incremental experimentation appear central to fostering adaptive performance under constraint (Atewologun & Harman, 2020). These practices are particularly relevant in contexts such as fintech start-ups, where rapid change, regulatory demands and digital modes of communication require leaders to balance flexibility with control.

Furthermore, the findings highlight that inclusive leadership may be interpreted differently across cultural and generational contexts. In Indonesia, where higher power distance and collectivist orientations may shape how employees express voice, leader behaviours that explicitly invite participation and clarify boundaries become particularly important. At the same time, Generation Z employees, who tend to value authenticity, inclusion and meaningful contribution, may be especially responsive to leadership practices that signal recognition and provide opportunities for involvement. Together, these contextual factors suggest that inclusive leadership operates not as a universal set of practices but as a context-sensitive leadership practice shaped by cultural norms, organisational structures and generational expectations.

This study should be interpreted in light of several methodological limitations. Although the analysis adopted a process-oriented interpretive perspective, the data were generated through retrospective open-ended survey responses collected at a single point in time. As such, the findings reflect participants’ experiential accounts and retrospective interpretations of how inclusive leadership operated in their everyday work contexts, rather than direct observation of interactional dynamics within organisational contexts.

While the dataset enabled the identification of recurring patterns of meaning across a large and diverse group of participants, the relatively concise nature of survey responses limited the depth of temporal, relational and contextual detail typically associated with longitudinal qualitative approaches such as interviews, ethnography, diary studies, or observational research. Accordingly, the study does not claim to offer a fully processual model of inclusive leadership. Instead, it provides a context-sensitive and empirically grounded account of how employees perceived and interpreted inclusive leadership practices within constrained organisational environments.

While reflexive thematic analysis enabled interpretive analysis across a large qualitative survey dataset, the relatively concise and non-interactive nature of the responses limited the depth of co-constructed meaning typically associated with interview-based qualitative research. Reflexivity in this study was therefore enacted primarily through iterative engagement with coding decisions, memo writing and critical reflection during theme development, rather than through interactive co-construction with participants.

In addition, the findings rely on participants’ retrospective self-reports, which may be shaped by selective recall, post hoc interpretation and individual meaning-making processes. Future research could extend these insights through longitudinal and interactional qualitative designs that examine how inclusion practices are experienced and negotiated across organisational contexts across organisational settings.