Strengthening Inclusive Leadership in Animal Health

Animal health systems face increasingly complex challenges, from emerging infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance to climate-related disruptions and evolving expectations around animal welfare. Efforts to strengthen animal health systems have so far focused on technical expertise, surveillance capacities, laboratory networks and regulatory frameworks, all of which remain essential. Yet an often-overlooked dimension of institutional effectiveness is the social and organisational conditions under which scientific knowledge is produced, debated and translated into action.

While research on inclusion in animal health remains limited [1,2], evidence from organisational science, public health and leadership studies suggests that inclusive practices strengthen decision-making in complex environments. 

Scientific knowledge is often presented as objective and independent of social contexts. However, knowledge is increasingly understood as being produced collectively through interactions between individuals, institutions and professional cultures [3,4]. The perspectives involved can influence which questions are asked, which assumptions are challenged and which solutions are ultimately adopted. 

Recent veterinary pathology studies indicate that diversity can strengthen not only workplace inclusion, but also how professional organisations identify problems and develop solutions [2]. This is where inclusive leadership can be of value. At its core is a simple idea: the quality of knowledge depends not only on who is involved, but also on how institutions enable knowledge to be shared, questioned and mobilised. 

Diversity and Inclusion in Animal Health

In 2023, the European Society of Veterinary Pathology (ESVP) and the European College of Veterinary Pathologists (ECVP) established a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Task Force to identify barriers to inclusion within the profession and develop practical recommendations for veterinary organisations, training centres and scientific events. Bringing together members from different countries, career stages and professional sectors (academia, diagnostic laboratories, industry and residency programmes), the Task Force combined a Europe-wide survey with interactive discussions to identify challenges and propose solutions. The diversity of the group itself proved to be an asset by broadening perspectives, strengthening collaboration and leading to more comprehensive recommendations. 

The terms diversity, inclusion and inclusive leadership are often used interchangeably, despite referring to distinct concepts. 

Diversity refers to the presence of individuals with different backgrounds, experiences, identities and perspectives within a group. Inclusion refers to the extent to which these individuals can participate equitably, contribute their expertise and influence decisions [5]. Inclusive leadership, in turn, encompasses the managerial practices that create environments where diverse individuals can participate equitably, contribute their expertise and translate diversity into collective learning and organisational performance [6]. 

Individuals occupy multiple social positions simultaneously. Participation and influence may be shaped by gender, age, disability, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, geographic origin, language, professional status or institutional affiliation. For example, a young woman working in a coastal fishing community in Côte d’Ivoire may face different challenges from those encountered by a senior female government official in Canada. Likewise, professionals with disabilities may encounter accessibility barriers that limit their ability to participate fully in meetings or training programmes.

From Diversity to Collective Intelligence

Diversity alone does not automatically improve performance and may sometimes even generate tensions or misunderstandings. However, when organisations cultivate inclusive practices, diversity can become a source of learning, innovation and resilience. Inclusion does not mean that every perspective must always be represented. Rather, it encourages institutions to consider whose knowledge is being mobilised, whose experiences may be overlooked and what information may be lost when participation is uneven. 

In this sense, inclusion offers a double benefit. First, it is consistent with international principles and global commitments to equality, participation and non-discrimination, reflected in instruments such as the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Second, it reinforces institutional intelligence. Public health provides several examples of the value of more inclusive approaches to decision-making. During the HIV/AIDS crisis, affected communities evolved from being viewed primarily as recipients of policies and services to becoming active participants in research, advocacy and governance. This shift brought new forms of expertise into decision-making and is often cited as a factor that improved the relevance and legitimacy of public health responses [7]. 

The Role of Inclusive Leadership

Inclusive leaders are characterised by openness, accessibility, humility and a willingness to seek out different perspectives [6]. A recent public health study describes inclusive leadership as the ability ‘to create, change, and innovate while balancing others’ needs. It requires courage, in any setting, to take intentional, conscious steps that break down barriers for people at risk of exclusion’ [8]. Inclusive leadership therefore goes beyond cultural competence and diversity management. It is not an innate personality trait but a set of learned practices, and it involves creating environments in which people can contribute fully without concealing aspects of their identities. Inclusive leaders foster psychological safety, enabling individuals to raise concerns, challenge assumptions and contribute ideas without fear of negative consequences [9]. 

Its value becomes particularly apparent in complex and uncertain situations. Imagine an outbreak response team in which most members believe disease transmission is occurring through pathway A. One of the junior field veterinarians presents evidence suggesting pathway B. An inclusive leader would encourage discussion and examine the evidence, protecting the team member from ridicule. A non-inclusive leader would dismiss the observation simply because it comes from a junior team member, assuming they lack the necessary experience and therefore have less to contribute. This assumption may reflect prejudice (if it is a conscious decision) or bias (if it operates unconsciously).  

Animal health decisions often require the integration of multiple forms of expertise. Veterinarians, epidemiologists, laboratory specialists, economists, social scientists, wildlife experts, policy-makers and community stakeholders may all contribute different pieces of information to help solve a given problem.  

Organisational research has repeatedly shown that homogeneous groups are more vulnerable to phenomena such as groupthink, where a desire for agreement can discourage individuals from questioning prevailing views, along with confirmation bias and overconfidence [10]. Even though diverse groups can sometimes be more challenging to manage, they often outperform homogeneous groups when solving complex problems because they bring a wider range of perspectives, experiences and analytical approaches [11]. 

Emerging Lessons from the Animal Health Sector

Like many science-based organisations, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) has historically drawn on veterinary expertise. Over time, however, the Organisation has expanded its range of disciplines, incorporating expertise from economics, the social sciences, communication, law and public policy. This diversification reflects the increasingly complex challenges facing animal health governance. 

Inclusive leadership plays a critical role in ensuring that this diversity translates into better decisions rather than fragmented discussions. Whether in national Veterinary Services, technical working groups, emergency response mechanisms or international standard-setting processes, the quality of decisions depends not only on the expertise present around the table but also on the conditions that allow that expertise to be expressed and considered.  

Although research on inclusive leadership within animal health remains limited, recent discussions across the veterinary community reflect growing interest in workforce diversity, inclusive governance and equitable participation. In May 2026, during a Gender Equality, Disability and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) side event at WOAH’s 93rd annual General Session, the Organisation’s Members shared concrete experiences illustrating how inclusion can strengthen veterinary governance. Côte d’Ivoire highlighted its national Gender Unit, supported by a network of 111 gender focal points across the Ministry of Animal and Fisheries Resources, while identifying the need for additional training and evidence generation to support implementation. Brazil emphasised the feminisation of the veterinary workforce alongside persistent leadership gaps and described measures such as flexible working arrangements, monitoring of workforce retention, and actions to improve women’s representation in decision-making positions. The United Arab Emirates emphasised institutional measures supporting women’s leadership, equal pay, accessible workplaces for persons with disabilities, and the growing feminisation of veterinary education. Across these different contexts, participants identified common priorities, including strengthening capacity-building, integrating GEDSI into veterinary education, facilitating peer-to-peer learning between WOAH Members and reinforcing inclusive workplace practices. 

Recent developments within veterinary professional organisations further illustrate the growing recognition that technical expertise alone may be insufficient to address complex organisational and social challenges. A European veterinary pathology survey on diversity, equity and inclusion showed that practitioners acknowledged the limitations of addressing inclusion-related questions without expertise from the social sciences. The authors noted that access to specialists in diversity and social science research would have strengthened both the design and implementation of their initiatives [2]. As veterinary systems increasingly engage with workforce development, community engagement, behavioural change, governance and social inclusion, collaboration between veterinary sciences and social sciences will become necessary for effective action. 

A Strategic Opportunity for Animal Health Governance

Animal health governance relies fundamentally on cooperation. Disease surveillance, emergency preparedness, standard setting and One Health initiatives all require collaboration across disciplines, institutions and national borders. In such environments, trust becomes a strategic resource. Inclusive leadership helps build this trust by fostering transparency, participation and mutual respect among stakeholders.  

This is particularly relevant for international organisations and multilateral processes. As veterinary challenges become more global, institutions must navigate diverse cultural, professional and geopolitical contexts. Inclusive leadership can help manage this complexity while maintaining scientific rigour and institutional legitimacy. 

The objective is not to replace technical expertise with social considerations. On the contrary, it is to recognise that technical expertise has the greatest impact when supported by organisational environments that nurture collaboration, learning and collective intelligence. 

Inclusive Leadership at Individual and Institutional Levels

Animal health has long invested in strengthening scientific knowledge, technical capacities and regulatory frameworks. These efforts remain indispensable. Yet the challenges facing the sector increasingly require attention to the quality of leadership and participation within institutions. Inclusive leadership is not merely an abstract principle; it can be translated into concrete practices at both individual and institutional levels. 

At the individual level, inclusive leaders can create psychologically safe environments through everyday practices. In outbreak management, for example, they can actively solicit input from field veterinarians, laboratory technicians or community actors whose perspectives differ from those of senior decision-makers. 

At the institutional level, inclusive leadership can be supported through multidisciplinary advisory groups, equitable participation in committees and working groups, mentoring programmes, leadership development initiatives, accessible meetings and conferences, and systems that facilitate upward feedback from staff and stakeholders. Such measures help embed inclusion within organisational culture rather than leaving it dependent on individual leaders.  

The objective is not to eliminate hierarchy or expertise, but to create conditions in which diverse forms of knowledge can contribute to collective decision-making. 

Looking Ahead

The next frontier for animal health may not lie solely in new technologies, surveillance systems or regulatory instruments. It may also lie in our capacity to create institutions that can mobilise the full diversity of knowledge, experience and perspectives available to them. Inclusive leadership is not just a question of organisational culture; it is increasingly a question of scientific quality and governance effectiveness. 

Main image: ©Getty Images

References  

[1] Bhatia A, Barcelos AM, McDonald JL, Waterman J, Finka L. An investigation of shelter workers’ perspectives on the assessment and management of unowned cat welfare in the United Kingdom. Anim. 2026;16(11):1641. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16111641  

[2] Denk D, Rasotto R, Abbondati E, et al. Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in Veterinary Pathology: insights and initiatives from a European Veterinary Specialist DEI Task Force. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2026;29(1):e70019. https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.70019  

[3] Harding S. Feminism and theories of scientific knowledge. Women Cult. Rev. 1990;1(1):87-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09574049008578026  

[4] Longino H. Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton (United States of America): Princeton University Press; 1990. 

[5] Shore LM, Cleveland JN, Sanchez D. Inclusive workplaces: a review and model. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2018;28(2):176-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003  

[6] Randel AE, Galvin BJ, Shore LM, Ehrhart KH, Chung BG, Dean MA, et al. Inclusive leadership: realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2018;28(2):190-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002  

[7] Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). UNAIDS Global AIDS Update 2024: the urgency of now: AIDS at a crossroads. Newcastle upon Tyne (United Kingdom): Stylus Publishing, LLC; 2024. Available at: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2024/global-aids-update-2024 (accessed on 19 June 2026). 

[8] King S, Roberts-Turner R, Floyd TT. Inclusive leadership: a framework to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and cultivate belonging. Nurse Lead. 2024;22(2):132-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2023.11.006  

[9] Edmondson AC. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999;44(2):350-83. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 

[10] Page S, Cantor N, Lewis E. The diversity bonus: how great teams pay off in the knowledge economy. Princeton (United States of America): Princeton University Press; 2019. 

[11] Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science. 2010;330(6004):686-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147