The Paradox of Inclusivity: Why Pushing for More Inclusion Can Sometimes Shrink Coalitions

When the B Corp movement strengthened its focus on inclusion, something unexpected happened: some of its strongest members left entirely.

That finding, drawn from Professor Garima Sharma’s research on B Corporations and organizational paradoxes, highlights a broader challenge facing many organizations, coalitions, and social movements. The effort to raise standards around one value can sometimes weaken the broader coalition needed to sustain long-term systemic change.

Rather than framing this as a failure of inclusion efforts, Sharma’s research examines it as a structural tension that leaders must learn to navigate.

How Inclusion Initiatives Created Unexpected Tension Inside the B Corp Movement

B Lab, the organization that certifies B Corporations, launched the Inclusive Economy Challenge to encourage companies to strengthen their inclusion practices.

Many participating companies improved their inclusion efforts, and the movement advanced across several sustainability dimensions.

But Sharma’s research identified a second, less expected outcome.

Some B Corps with particularly strong environmental or governance practices—but weaker inclusion performance—did not simply disengage from the challenge itself. In some cases, they exited the B Corp movement entirely.

These companies were not necessarily opposed to inclusion. Instead, many viewed their organizational identity and strengths as rooted in other dimensions of sustainability, such as environmental innovation, governance, or community investment.

“It was sort of this whole array of signals that these B Corps were receiving,” Sharma explains, “and their strengths and identity lie somewhere else rather than inclusion, and they felt that this is probably not the movement for them.”

What the “Paradox of Inclusivity” Reveals About Organizational Change

Sharma describes this dynamic as the paradox of inclusivity: efforts to deepen inclusion within a movement can unintentionally create exclusion dynamics for members whose identities or contributions are tied to other priorities.

This is not an argument against inclusion. Instead, it reflects how organizations and coalitions respond when one value becomes increasingly central to group identity.

Sharma explains the pattern as a series of reinforcing organizational signals:

• A movement identifies a significant value gap
• A movement elevates that value through standards, messaging, and identity shifts
• Members aligned with that value deepen engagement
• Members whose strengths lie elsewhere experience growing misalignment
• Some members disengage or leave the coalition entirely

This can make a movement more focused, but potentially smaller and less diverse in the forms of expertise and contribution it retains.

Why the Paradox of Inclusivity Extends Beyond B Corporations

Sharma’s research suggests this dynamic extends far beyond the B Corp movement.

In corporations, organizations that strongly prioritize one cultural value may unintentionally alienate employees who contribute through different strengths or perspectives.

In professional associations, groups that shift their priorities toward emerging issues may lose members who still support the broader mission but no longer recognize themselves within the organization’s evolving identity.

In social movements, coalitions focused intensely on one dimension of change can sometimes narrow participation from allies whose motivations or expertise differ.

The underlying pattern remains consistent: when any organization elevates one value above others, it risks narrowing the coalition that supports broader systemic progress.

What Business Leaders Should Understand About Inclusion and Coalition-Building

Sharma’s research does not suggest organizations should avoid pushing for inclusion or other important values. Instead, it highlights the importance of managing identity shifts carefully inside complex coalitions.

Her work points to several broader strategic considerations for leaders:

• Identity signals shape belonging. When organizations elevate one value, members whose identities center elsewhere may experience growing misalignment.
• Coalitions are strongest when diverse forms of contribution remain visible and valued.
• Organizations can raise standards without reducing belonging to a single defining characteristic.
• Long-term systemic change often depends on maintaining broad coalitions with complementary strengths.

Understanding these dynamics may help organizations pursue meaningful progress while avoiding unintended fragmentation.

How Research on Organizational Paradox Is Reshaping Leadership Thinking

At the Kogod School of Business at American University, Sharma’s broader research consistently examines tensions that organizations cannot fully resolve, but must instead learn to navigate.

The paradox of inclusivity reflects one of those tensions.

Organizations seeking meaningful social impact often face competing priorities simultaneously: strengthening standards while preserving coalition breadth, advancing values while sustaining participation, and deepening accountability without narrowing belonging.

For Sharma, the goal is not to eliminate those tensions. It is to help leaders recognize and manage them more effectively.