The Cost of Exclusion: Why Leaving Talent Out Hurts Organizations

Perhaps because of inexperience or perhaps because of my role, but I didn’t always question why myself or a colleague with very specific expertise were left out of key meetings. Now that I have the opportunity to mentor a number of colleagues in leadership roles and look back at my own experiences, I see exclusionary practices as a tactic deployed by some leaders for various reasons, none of which are out of good intentions. We know that organizations thrive when they harness the full potential of their workforce. But I can’t even begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen organizations bring in talent only to be excluded from the reasons they were brought on board in the first place. Exclusionary practices—whether intentional or unintentional—frequently prevent the best talent from contributing to key discussions. Excluding key personnel from meetings, particularly those with expertise and direct involvement in projects, can hinder innovation, create inefficiencies, and damage morale. This blog is just a way for me to explore some of my own observed behaviors and to look at the impact of these practices, why they persist, and strategies we can, as a profession, commit to being a more inclusive decision-making profession.

First, here are my thoughts on the Cost of Exclusionary Practices

1. Missed Expertise and Innovation
   Many organizations bring together senior leadership or a select few to discuss strategic direction. However, failing to include subject matter experts (SMEs) or those directly responsible for execution often results in decisions based on incomplete information. The absence of critical voices means that organizations miss opportunities for innovation, problem-solving, and efficiency.

2. Reduced Employee Morale and Engagement
   Talented professionals who are consistently excluded from discussions begin to feel undervalued and disengaged. This exclusion signals that their insights are not needed, leading to decreased motivation to be an active member and, eventually, attrition. Talented individuals will seek out organizations where their voices matter, leaving behind a vacuum that is difficult to fill.

3. Inefficiency and Poor Implementation
   When decisions are made in a vacuum, they often lead to misalignment between leadership vision and operational reality. Teams responsible for execution are left scrambling to implement policies and strategies that may be impractical or lack context. This results in rework, delays, and wasted resources. As I’ve shared with many leaders, “I value my time and I need the organization to do the same.”

4. Reinforcing Systemic Inequalities
   Exclusionary practices often disproportionately impact underrepresented groups (FYI, men are an underrepresented group in nursing and nursing is underrepresented in the C-suits, Boards, and business), with valuable insights. If decision-making spaces remain homogenous, organizations risk perpetuating biases and limiting diverse perspectives that drive innovation and inclusivity.

Leadership Insecurity and Exclusionary Practices

One of the most overlooked causes of exclusionary practices is leadership insecurity. I see this more than I care to in various organizations, in both nurses and physicians. When leaders feel threatened by the expertise, influence, or innovative thinking of others, they may intentionally or subconsciously exclude these individuals from key meetings and decision-making processes.

1. Fear of Being Challenged
   Leaders who are insecure in their roles may avoid including highly knowledgeable team members in discussions because they fear being questioned or exposed for their lack of expertise. Instead of fostering collaboration, they prioritize maintaining authority, even at the cost of organizational success.

2. Protecting Power and Control
   Some leaders see decision-making as a means of consolidating power. By keeping key meetings exclusive, they ensure that they maintain control over strategies, policies, and resources. This creates a toxic work environment where only a select few have influence, leading to stagnation and resentment among employees.

3. Downplaying the Contributions of Others
   Insecure leaders may feel the need to diminish the contributions of others to maintain their own status. They may exclude high-performing employees from critical discussions to take credit for their work or prevent them from gaining visibility in the organization. This not only demoralizes employees but also weakens the organization by sidelining its most capable individuals.

4. Lack of Confidence in Delegation
   Strong leadership involves trusting others to contribute and lead in their areas of expertise. However, insecure leaders may micromanage or make unilateral decisions instead of delegating. This prevents the organization from benefiting from collective intelligence and slows down progress.

Why Exclusionary Practices Persist

1. Hierarchical Decision-Making Cultures
   Many organizations operate with rigid structures where decision-making is confined to executives or upper management. This top-down approach reinforces the belief that only those in certain positions are qualified to contribute, dismissing the value of those on the ground.

2. Conscious and Unconscious Bias
   Decision-makers often surround themselves with familiar voices, excluding those who think differently or come from diverse backgrounds. This "like-me" bias leads to echo chambers where innovation is stifled. This is especially noticeable in institutions with a dominant ethnic group or hierarchical professional group (i.e. physician-led institutions).

3. Gatekeeping and Power Consolidation
   In some cases, exclusion is a deliberate strategy used to consolidate power. Certain individuals or groups may intentionally limit participation in decision-making to maintain control over processes and outcomes.

4. Lack of Awareness or Process
   Sometimes, exclusion occurs simply because there are no established processes to ensure key individuals are included. Without intentional efforts to expand participation, meetings default to a narrow set of decision-makers.

5. Personal Conflicts of Interest: Some leaders may exclude certain individuals from key meetings due to personal biases, favoritism, personal relationships, or conflicts of interest. Whether driven by competition, past disagreements, or a desire to promote their own allies, these decisions can undermine organizational success by prioritizing personal agendas over the best interests of the team.

Strategies for Inclusive Decision-Making

1. Establish Clear Inclusion Criteria for Meetings
   Define which voices are necessary for key discussions. If a meeting involves strategy or policy implementation, ensure that those responsible for execution are present to provide insight from the beginning. Bringing in your key individuals after all the decisions have been made is like building a damn with rocks and no mortar! Full of leaks and holes!

2. Encourage Cross-Level Participation
   Organizations should create pathways for employees at all levels to contribute ideas. Rotating meeting participation, inviting SMEs, and hosting open forums can bridge the gap between leadership and frontline talent. Shared governance is one example, but in some organizations, shared governance is more of a magnet status optic than reality!

3. Adopt Transparent Communication Practices
   When meetings occur, outcomes should be documented and shared with relevant stakeholders. Transparency ensures that those who were not in the room still have access to decisions and can contribute feedback. Leaders who lack transparency often use information as part of their hold on the power dynamics over another individual or group.

4. Implement Mentorship and Sponsorship Programs
   Organizations should invest in mentorship and sponsorship programs that help elevate underrepresented voices into decision-making spaces. Senior leaders must take responsibility for ensuring diverse talent is included and a structured program is in place.

5. Foster a Culture of Psychological Safety
   Employees should feel safe speaking up about exclusionary practices without fear of retaliation. Leadership should actively seek input and create mechanisms for employees to voice concerns about meeting participation.

6. Develop Leadership Training Focused on Confidence and Inclusion
   Organizations should provide training for leaders to build confidence in their roles, address insecurities, and develop inclusive decision-making skills. By encouraging leaders to embrace collaboration rather than fear competition, companies can create a more dynamic and engaged workforce.

Exclusionary practices harm both individuals and organizations. When talented individuals are left out of key meetings and are unsupported, institutions lose out on innovation, efficiency, and employee engagement. Leadership competency and insecurity play a significant role in perpetuating exclusion, as some leaders fear being challenged, resist sharing power, or seek to control decision-making. By fostering a culture of inclusion and addressing leadership insecurities, organizations can create more effective decision-making processes, retain top talent, and drive long-term success.

The most forward-thinking organizations recognize that every voice matters—and that great ideas often come from the most unexpected places. The question leaders must ask themselves is: Are we making decisions based on the best ideas available or just the most convenient ones? And, are we meeting with just leaders or are we inclusive of the talent needed to accomplish institutional goals?