I received the email from HR about the mandatory DEI workshop — and groaned. At the globally ranked business school where I worked part-time, urgent tasks awaited: grading two sets of executive MBA scripts. I didn’t have time for what I thought would be an inconvenience.
Unexpectedly, that workshop would reshape my understanding of what truly drives inclusion. It would also lead me to develop a simple yet powerful communication framework that every leader should use.
Across regions, DEI initiatives are gaining momentum as workplaces demand representation and fairness. And the systematic disadvantages minorities face should not be disregarded. Still, for me, sacrificing a whole workday to the workshop seemed excessive.
Or so I thought.
But the excellent DEI practitioner, Ms C, challenged my assumptions. She brought deep DEI expertise and the capacity to tailor global best practices to the unique values and culture of the business school. Her nuanced, context-aware approach elevated the entire workshop.
As the day progressed, I could clearly see how inclusive communication served as a natural anchor, not only for DEI considerations but also for leadership effectiveness.
Why DEI Matters Globally
The business case for DEI in organisations is well-documented. For example, McKinsey research revealed that organisations that prioritised ethnic and cultural diversity outperformed others by 36 per cent in profitability. Executive teams with 30 per cent women were also more likely to outperform those with fewer women.
But for those DEI results to become embedded in the workplace where they yield results, leaders must commit to one mindset shift:
They must integrate inclusive communication strategies in their arsenal and view them as a strategic pillar in their effectiveness, not a good-to-have fad.
Even the best DEI programmes fail when the communication is weak.
So, here’s what to note:
Inclusive communication is not just a DEI tool — it is a leader’s superpower that inspires action and drives impact.
Inclusive communication isn’t just a DEI tool — it’s a leader’s superpower that inspires action and drives impact.
– LUCILLE OSSAI
What Inclusive Communication Should Entail
Of all the definitions of inclusive communication available online, including insightful submissions in this Forbes article, Ms C, the DEI facilitator, outlined three key traits. Her approach sparked a reflection that led me to adapt it into the CoReC™ Pillars of Inclusive Communication — a practical system that leaders can use immediately.
This system entails:
- Messaging that is Context-specific
- Messaging that is Respectful
- Messaging that is Clear
Why Leaders Should Adopt the CoReC™ Pillars of Inclusive Communication
In this system, each pillar reinforces the next to create a seamless delivery.
So, context sets the stage, respect ensures engagement, and clarity drives action. Together, they create communication that influences and converts.
Here’s how it works:
Now, let’s examine each pillar.
1) The Messaging Should Be Context-Specific
Tailor your communication to the situation
This is how context-specific messaging works in practice:
First, prioritise specificity, which ensures relevance.
Second, know your audience so that you can tailor your message accordingly.
Finally, focus on the message itself and the context to which it applies.
When Context-Blind Communication Cost a $500 Million Riyadh Partnership
The Stakes: Failed partnership with real estate consortium, government penalties, reputational damage across Gulf markets, loss of regional market access
Scenario: The Riyadh Development Proposal That Backfired
A European property development firm had spent two years building relationships to join a prestigious real estate consortium in Riyadh — part of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 transformation.
The opportunity: Co-develop a luxury residential compound worth $500 million, backed by prominent Saudi family offices and government development authorities.
The consortium included members of established Saudi business families, senior advisors with government connections, and representatives from entities aligned with the Kingdom’s national development strategy. For a foreign firm, this partnership represented entry into one of the world’s most ambitious property markets.
The partnership required formal approval through a written proposal. The CEO, with experience across 20 European projects, drafted the proposal using the company’s standard template — an approach that had been successful in London, Berlin, and Stockholm. Leadership saw no reason to adapt it for Saudi Arabia. The 15-page proposal was submitted in early December. This document would determine the company’s access to the Kingdom’s expanding real estate sector.
The Breakdown:
The proposal:
- Opened with an informal greeting: ‘Dear Partners’ (no acknowledgement of His Royal Highness, titles, or hierarchical positions)
- Used concise, transactional Western language instead of the elevated, respectful rhetoric expected in Saudi business culture
- Presented fixed timelines: ‘Construction begins March 2026’ — with no consultation indicated
- Jumped immediately into business terms (e.g., investment splits, efficiency metrics) without relationship acknowledgement
- Structured around ‘flat governance’ and ‘equal partnership’ — violating Saudi hierarchical protocols
- Ended with: ‘Looking forward to getting started. Please confirm by 15 January’
What Happened:
- The consortium responded with courteous, formal language expressing ‘appreciation for the interest’ and suggesting ‘further consideration may be beneficial’ — high-context Saudi communication signalling polite rejection
- No meeting was scheduled despite the proposal’s request
- Follow-up enquiries over six weeks received similarly gracious but non-committal responses (‘We remain in consultation’)
- Three months later, the company received formal notification from Saudi authorities citing ‘insufficient alignment with the Kingdom development protocols’, resulting in a two-year restriction from participating in Vision 2030-linked projects
- The rejection reverberated through regional networks; in relationship-focused Saudi business culture, word spread quietly that the European firm ‘did not understand our ways’
- Within five months, a competitor from Singapore who understood Gulf protocols secured the consortium partnership
- The European firm’s reputation across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) markets was damaged, and other Gulf opportunities quietly disappeared
What Context-Blind Communication Looked Like
In the written proposal, the Western style was misapplied:
Dear Partners,
We’re pleased to submit our proposal for the Pinnacle Riyadh Residential Compound Development Project. Our team brings 25 years of European experience delivering high-quality projects on time and on budget.
Project Scope: Six hundred luxury units across eight residential buildings, targeting Saudi professionals and expatriate families. Estimated completion: 24 months from the ground-breaking.
Timeline: We propose breaking ground in March 2026, with Phase 1 delivery by March 2028. Our streamlined approach reduces typical timelines by 30%, delivering faster returns.
Investment Structure: The total project cost is $500 million. Each consortium member contributes proportionally. We propose equal governance rights regardless of stake size to encourage collaborative decision-making.
Governance: Monthly partner meetings ensure alignment and quick decisions. Our flat organisational structure values all voices equally, promoting innovation and efficiency.
Financial Projections: Conservative estimates indicate an 18% internal rate of return (IRR — the annual percentage return on investment) over five years with exit options available by year four.
Please confirm your participation by 15 January so we can mobilise our team and secure permits.
Best regards,
The Development Team
What Was Wrong with This Context:
• No acknowledgement of titles or hierarchical protocols; opened with casual ‘Dear Partners’
• Transactional Western language instead of elevated Saudi rhetoric
• Fixed timelines and ‘flat governance’ violated hierarchical expectations
• No reference to Vision 2030 or relationship-building
The Consequence:
The consortium leadership interpreted the proposal as culturally tone-deaf and strategically naive. In Saudi business culture — especially for government-linked projects — elevated, respectful communication signals understanding of the Kingdom’s values. Jumping directly to business terms without acknowledging the relationship suggested that the company viewed Saudis as mere transaction partners, rather than respected collaborators.
The high-context rejection (‘further consideration may be beneficial’) protected everyone’s dignity whilst signalling apparent refusal. Western firms often miss these indirect signals. The government penalty underscored that cultural incompetence has regulatory implications for Vision 2030 projects. The partnership died quietly. However, the reputational damage spread quickly through the Gulf business networks, where relationships determine access.
What Context-Specific Communication Should Have Looked Like
Culturally Intelligent Approach for the Riyadh Context:
Your Royal Highness, Esteemed Leaders of the Consortium,
We humbly seek the honour of contributing to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s visionary transformation under the wise leadership that is guiding the realisation of Vision 2030. This development opportunity represents not merely a commercial undertaking but a privilege to serve the Kingdom’s noble aspirations for the flourishing prosperity of Saudi families.
Proposed Development: A residential compound honouring Saudi architectural heritage whilst embracing modern excellence — creating dignified homes for 600 families and 400 meaningful positions, reflecting the Kingdom’s commitment to its people.
Investment and Governance: Five hundred million dollars over five years, with governance protocols respecting established Saudi authority and decision-making wisdom throughout all phases. We seek your patient guidance on timelines, consultation requirements, and community considerations. Your counsel will fully shape our approach.
We commit to relationship-building preceding all business matters, recognising that an enduring partnership in the Kingdom requires a deep understanding earned through respectful engagement over time.
We await your gracious direction with profound gratitude.
With highest respect,
[Formal signature with full titles]
The Difference:
- Elevated rhetoric: Formal, beautiful language appropriate for Saudi business culture
- Vision 2030 alignment: Connected to national development priorities
- Relationship-first: Acknowledged partnership before discussing business terms
- Hierarchical respect: Recognised Saudi authority in governance and decision-making
- Patient framing: No timeline pressure, emphasised long-term relationship-building
- Community focus: Highlighted family wellbeing and employment (Saudi cultural values)
- Consultation approach: Sought guidance rather than imposing Western structures
What Would Have Happened:
The consortium would have recognised cultural intelligence and respect. The elevated rhetoric would have signalled seriousness. Even if approvals required months of relationship-building (which is normal in Saudi contexts), the foundation would have been solid. The company would have avoided penalties, maintained its reputation, and gained access to Vision 2030 opportunities worth billions of dollars.
The Leadership Lesson
Context-specific communication isn’t about politeness — it’s about market access and regulatory compliance. When leaders apply a one-size-fits-all approach across different cultural contexts, especially in government-linked partnerships, the consequences extend far beyond single deals:
- Regulatory exclusion: Governments restrict market access for firms demonstrating cultural incompetence
- Network-based rejection: In relationship-driven cultures, one failure closes doors across regions
- Indirect but permanent damage: High-context cultures reject you politely; you may not realise you’re excluded until years of opportunity have passed
- Competitive disadvantage: Culturally intelligent competitors capture partnerships whilst you’re navigating penalties
In global business, context-specific communication determines whether you’re trusted with strategic opportunities. The CEO’s 15-page proposal cost $500 million, two years of market access, and the company’s Gulf reputation. The opportunity was lost because the document, though successful across 20 European projects, was catastrophically misaligned with Saudi protocols.
Leaders who master context-specific communication adapt their approach whilst maintaining their standards — those who don’t lose markets, partnerships, and years of relationship-building.
The best leaders appropriately tailor their communication for every context they enter. They take no chances.
Before your next cross-cultural communication, research protocols. Realise that 15 minutes of researching cultural norms prevents years of market exclusion.
Remember: Context sets the foundation, but without respect, even perfectly tailored messages can fail, as explained next.
2) The Messaging Should be Respectful
Communicate with respect and dignity
Respectful communication reinforces psychological safety and coaxes engagement.
A critical facet of inclusive communication is ensuring that the messaging is professional and the tone is respectful.
A brash tone or insensitive message alienates. Whether it’s your unprofessional email tone or your biting remarks when chastising your team, being inconsiderate can reduce morale, trigger disengagement, and lead to poor performance.
Expressions of respect may differ by country, but the need for respectful communication remains a wise business decision. Inclusive leaders, therefore, ensure that their communication affirms dignity at every level.
In today’s global village, work teams need to feel safe and empowered to share their opinions, take risks, and disagree with leadership without the fear of reprisals.
Therefore, it’s unsurprising that much is said about the positive impact of psychological safety. Moreover, the Boston Consulting Group explains that psychological safety acts as an ‘equaliser’ — helping diverse and disadvantaged employee groups to achieve the same levels of workplace satisfaction as their more advantaged colleagues (which in turn leads to engagement and improved bottom-line indicators).
And respectful communication is key to ensuring the desired behaviours ‘stick’. It creates the psychological safety that enables people to feel part of a community and to work towards a shared goal.
As a leader, your respectful communication coaxes trust and upholds the dignity of people. When they feel respected and valued, they’re more likely to support you.
When Cultural Missteps Became an Organisational Crisis
The Stakes: Reputational damage, diplomatic incident, leadership removal, team morale collapse
Scenario: The Diplomat Who Lost Her Post
Early in my career, working at a foreign embassy in Africa, I witnessed the rapid downfall of a leader. A European diplomat, newly assigned to lead administration and finance, made repeated verbal missteps that demonstrated cultural insensitivity towards the local staff. Her communication style — characterised by a loud, dismissive tone and crude language sometimes laced with profanity — eroded trust within weeks.
The Breakdown:
- Local staff felt disrespected and devalued
- Productivity declined as team members disengaged
- Word spread, creating diplomatic tension
- The Ambassador received a formal complaint from staff members
How Staff Responded:
Local staff who had worked at the embassy for years without incident voiced their complaints. Through their Locally Engaged Staff Union (previously approved by the Ambassador), they issued a strong letter condemning the treatment. They appealed to the Ambassador’s well-known commitment to equality, respect, and justice — principles evident in her leadership and central to her country’s diplomatic traditions.
The Consequence:
Within months, the diplomat was recalled to her home country in Europe. It was an unprecedented decision at the mission, one that required considerable courage, given the diplomatic protocols in place. But the Ambassador deemed her toxicity incompatible with the mission’s objectives and announced to all local staff that the diplomat had been recalled.
What Disrespectful Communication Looked Like
In a one-on-one meeting with a local staff member:
Dismissive approach: ‘I have told you to do x. Get it done immediately!’ (Followed by profanity).
What Respectful Communication Should Have Looked Like
Culturally Intelligent Approach: ‘I’m learning how operations work here and appreciate the support you’ve shown over the years. I’d like to understand the current processes before we explore any adjustments. Can we discuss what’s worked well, what hasn’t, and where we can improve?’
The Difference:
- Acknowledges existing expertise and institutional knowledge
- Invites collaboration rather than imposing hierarchy
- Demonstrates humility and willingness to learn context
- Builds psychological safety for honest dialogue
The Leadership Lesson
Respectful communication isn’t just about politeness; it’s about recognising the dignity and expertise of others regardless of geography, title, or tenure.
When leaders fail to communicate respect, especially across cultural contexts, the consequences reverberate:
- Loss of institutional knowledge as experienced staff disengage
- Reputational damage within local business and government networks
- Diplomatic incidents that undermine organisational mission
- Leadership removal and costly replacement cycles
In global organisations, respectful communication is a strategic action, not a soft skill. Leaders who master it build trust across cultures — those who don’t, get recalled, just like the European diplomat.
Before your next difficult conversation, do a self-awareness check: ‘How would I want to be addressed if our roles were reversed?’
Respectful communication builds trust. But without clarity, even the most culturally sensitive messages fail to drive action. Clarity delivers, as explained below.
3) The Messaging Should Be Clear
Make your intentions unambiguous
Clear messaging accelerates action.
Clarity is one of the three ‘beacons’ of effective communication that I coined years ago on this blog.
As a leader, your message must be clear and contain a call to action — what you want the audience to know, feel, or do — without which your message won’t be actionable.
When Unclear Communication Lost the Board’s Confidence
The Stakes: Strategic plan rejected, leadership credibility damaged, company direction stalled, competitive advantage lost
Scenario: The Presentation That Failed
A CEO had worked for six months developing a bold new strategy to transform the company. The plan required an investment of $150 million that would reshape operations across 12 countries. Everything hinged on one critical board meeting where directors would vote on approval.
The CEO had 30 minutes to deliver the presentation. The board had flown in from around the world — an opportunity to secure their backing for a plan that would define the company’s future.
The Breakdown:
The CEO:
- Spent 15 minutes explaining industry trends and general challenges
- Used phrases like ‘strategic pivoting’ and ‘operational excellence’ without specifics
- Showed 40 slides dense with bullet points and jargon
- Failed to explain what would change, how much each initiative would cost, or what success would look like
- Didn’t read the room and ended with: ‘I’m confident this is the right direction, and I’m happy to answer questions’
What Happened:
- Board members exchanged confused glances as they couldn’t grasp what they were voting on
- When asked specific questions, the CEO gave vague answers about ‘aligning with stakeholders’ and ‘driving value’
- Three non-executive directors said they needed more clarity before voting
- The board postponed the decision for three months pending ‘further details’
- During that delay, a competitor launched a similar strategy and captured market share
The CEO’s credibility never fully recovered.
What Unclear Communication Looked Like
In the Boardroom
Vague Approach:
‘The market is changing rapidly, and we need to transform our business model to stay competitive. This requires strategic pivoting in our investments. We’ll focus on our customers and operational excellence whilst driving value across our portfolio. I believe this positions us for long-term success. I’m confident this is the right direction, and I’m happy to answer questions.’
What Was Missing:
- What specifically will change? Which departments, which products, which markets?
- How much will each initiative cost? What’s the total investment required?
- What will success look like in 12 months? In three years?
- What are you asking us to approve today?
The Consequence:
Board members were unable to vote because the CEO hadn’t explained the plan. Without specific information and a clear decision to make, they felt they’d be approving a blank cheque. The three-month delay allowed competitors to move first, and the company lost its window of opportunity.
What Clear Communication Should Have Looked Like
Strategic Approach:
‘Our market share has dropped from 22% to 18% in two years, whilst our main competitor’s has grown to 25%. If we don’t act now, we’ll be irrelevant in three years.
I’m asking you to approve three initiatives totalling $150 million:
First: $80 million to modernise our manufacturing plants in Germany and Portugal — leveraging Germany’s engineering excellence and Portugal’s lower cost structure — thereby reducing production costs by 20% within two years.
Second: $50 million to expand into South Africa, a strategic African market with around 15 million middle-class consumers and a strong demand in our category.
Third: $20 million to retrain 500 staff in digital skills, cutting our reliance on external consultants by half.
Success means recapturing our 22% market share within two years, generating $120 million in high-margin revenue in South Africa, and achieving full payback on this investment within three years.
I’m requesting your approval today to start in January. Without it, we’ll miss the market window, and our competitor will dominate. What questions do you have about these three initiatives?’
The Difference:
- Specific: Named what would change (manufacturing, geographic expansion, staff training)
- Quantified: Clear costs, timelines, and expected results
- Actionable: Explicit request (‘I’m requesting your approval today’)
- Consequential: Explained what happens if they say no
- Focused: Three initiatives instead of vague ‘transformation’
What Would Have Happened:
Board members would have understood exactly what they were approving. Even sceptical directors could ask specific questions about manufacturing timelines or the risks associated with the South African market. The board could have voted that day — yes or no — because the decision would have been clear. The CEO would have shown strategic thinking, not just buzzwords.
The Leadership Lesson
Clear communication isn’t about sounding clever but making decisions possible. When leaders fail to communicate clearly, especially when the stakes are high, the consequences hit fast:
- Decision paralysis: People can’t approve what they don’t understand
- Lost opportunities: Whilst they’re clarifying, competitors are acting
- Damaged credibility: Vague communication signals muddled thinking
- Wasted time: Everyone has to reconvene because the first attempt failed
In leadership, clarity triggers speedy execution. The CEO’s inability to communicate clearly in 30 minutes cost the company its strategic advantage. Leaders who master clear communication, with specific plans, explicit requests, and defined outcomes, move quickly.
Before your next board presentation, ask yourself: ‘Could someone approve this today, or am I just asking them to approve a concept?’
The best leaders don’t confuse complexity with sophistication. They make the complex simple and the decisions easy.
Conclusion
Remember the sequential power of the CoReC™ Pillars:
Context-specific messaging sets the stage, respectful communication sustains engagement, and clear content drives action.
So, just as Ms C stressed the importance of inclusive communication at that DEI workshop, I’m reiterating the one thing leaders should note about inclusive communication:
Become intentional about the context, tone, and messaging. They reinforce the culture of DEI, create a psychologically safe environment, and position you as a trustworthy leader whom people will support.
Your legacy lies in how consistently you use inclusive communication to inspire action and lead with impact — not in ticking shiny DEI boxes.
Start today: Choose one upcoming high-stakes communication. Apply the CoReC™ Pillars — Context first, Respect second, and Clarity third. Then watch what happens when you lead with precision and cultural intelligence.
Quick CoReC™ Audit:
Context: Have I identified my audience? What protocols apply? How should I adapt?
Respect: Am I acknowledging dignity? Building psychological safety? Honouring expertise?
Clarity: What’s my specific call to action? When is it required? What happens if they say yes/no?
Use this checklist before every high-stakes communication.
Note:
The Global 4-Domain Communication Skills Rating Tool™ is in beta and will remain private until its public launch in 2026.
In the meantime, please email Lucille@LucilleOssai.com if you’d like me to speak at your event or design and deliver communication coaching and training programmes for your organisation.
———————————————————–
N.B: First image is courtesy of Markus Winkler via Pixabay. The CoReC™ Pillars image is courtesy of Lucille Ossai. The third and fourth images are courtesy of Gerd Altmann via Pixabay.