Seeing Ourselves in Difference
Vanessa Steenkamp on how the love of the unfamiliar shapes inclusive leaders
As AI threatens to homogenize decision-making, a psychodynamic study reveals that childhood experiences of “otherness” may hold the key to truly inclusive leadership
In 2026, as companies worldwide deploy increasingly sophisticated AI systems to streamline hiring and decision-making, a quieter and more troubling pattern is emerging: algorithms trained on historical data are amplifying, rather than reducing, workplace homogeneity.
Yet algorithms are only part of the story.
Long before AI entered the workplace, humans were already drawn to what felt familiar. Again and again, leaders select colleagues who mirror their own backgrounds, assumptions, and ways of thinking — often without realizing it. Sociologists call this instinct “homophily,” or the love of the same, and its gravitational pull has proven difficult for even the most well-intentioned diversity programs and quota systems to overcome.
But what if the solution lies not in better training programs or stricter quotas, but in understanding a different kind of person altogether—leaders who possess what might be called “heterophily,” a genuine love of difference?
A psychodynamic study by INSEAD Executive Master in Change researcher Vanessa Steenkamp points to an unexpected possibility: the foundations of inclusive leadership may be laid much earlier than we assume. Many leaders who demonstrate an unusual openness to difference share a formative experience — an early encounter with “otherness” that quietly expanded their sense of self.
The Outsider’s Advantage
Vanessa Steenkamp’s research began with a simple question: Why do some leaders naturally gravitate toward diverse teams and perspectives while others, despite good intentions, consistently recreate homogeneous environments?
Working with top executives from different industries and cultures, she used an unusual methodology—asking them to draw childhood memories before conducting in-depth interviews about their leadership journeys.
The results were striking. Every participant, regardless of nationality or background, had moved frequently as a child—across cities, countries, or even continents. Each had experienced the disorienting feeling of being an outsider, of not quite fitting in. And each had developed what psychologists call “openness to experience,” a personality trait characterized by curiosity about different cultures, comfort with ambiguity, and attraction to novelty.
“I was always the minority,” one participant recalled, describing a childhood spent moving between 67 different countries. “I couldn’t speak a word of English at first, sitting underneath a table learning with very young children. I’d listen to their views about other countries and quickly started understanding the difference between realities and perceptions, between facts and bias.”
Another participant, raised in Africa and Europe with British nationality, remembered a formative moment at a Girl Guides event: “I saw girl guides from all over the world wearing different uniforms, speaking other languages, looking very different. It was eye-opening—there was this other world, these other girls like me but somewhere else, living very different lives and yet doing so much similar things. I think that really marked me.”
The Architecture of Inclusion
What emerged from Steenkamp’s research was a recognizable pattern. The inclusive leaders she studied didn’t just tolerate difference—they actively sought it out. Their life partners came from different nationalities or ethnicities. Their hobbies transcended cultural boundaries. Their careers zigzagged across industries and geographies in ways that mystified more conventional colleagues.
But perhaps most tellingly, when these leaders drew pictures of their childhood memories, certain elements appeared again and again: outdoor spaces and nature, bicycles and cars (symbols of independence and freedom), musical instruments, books, and—overwhelmingly—other people. Their early lives had been characterized by movement, exploration, and a persistent curiosity about what lay beyond the familiar.
“I don’t remember thinking or knowing anything about Asia,” one participant said of his decision to move to Singapore early in his career. “It was an adventure. I kind of liked the uniqueness of it as well. I think I’ve always liked having an interesting story.”
This attraction to the different wasn’t superficial tourism or performative diversity. It was woven into their identities, shaped by childhoods that demanded constant adaptation. Moving frequently had forced them to develop resilience and social flexibility. Being the outsider had taught them empathy. Navigating between cultures had trained them to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously.
From Trauma to Transformation
Not all of these childhood experiences were positive. Several participants described feeling excluded, misunderstood, or judged for being different. One woman recalled the challenge of studying in a field that was 90% male. Another spoke about having to “behave more masculine” in corporate environments to be taken seriously, describing how “the entire ecosystem is built to make us think in certain ways—soap operas, movies, our families.”
A male participant noted an ironic reversal in recent years: “I married a feminist who has changed me in the sense of what’s imprinted in me. She’ll say things like, ‘Why did you draw long hair on the girls?’” He also observed that he now sometimes felt like a minority himself as organizations actively promoted more women and people of diverse ethnicities—a disorienting experience that gave him new insight into what others had long felt.
What Steenkamp’s research suggests is that these experiences of exclusion, rather than hardening these leaders against difference, had made them more committed to inclusion. Having felt what it’s like to be on the outside, they were determined to create environments where everyone could belong.
“Given my journey, I swore to myself that I would consciously choose inclusion,” one participant explained. “I consciously chose to network and not confine myself to my small group, making sure I am accessible. I don’t care about age or maturity.”
Another put it more philosophically: “Having moved so often and seen the wonderful diversity of cultures, people, ways of eating, religion—it becomes something you can’t live without. Even when I go on holiday, I’m not the one who sits by the pool and relaxes. I just want to experience what’s out there.”
The Business Case Beyond the Business Case
The executives in Steenkamp’s study weren’t naive idealists. They understood that businesses must be profitable and that inclusion initiatives face real resistance. But they had learned something that traditional diversity training often misses: diverse teams don’t just check boxes—they solve problems better.
“I believe diversity of thought is a fundamental enabler to creativity, competitiveness, and performance,” one participant argued. “When you have one entity, one gender, sessions tend to be more assertive, more open. The moment you create representation and diversity in the room, the room becomes more self-guarded. But once you open the discussion up with a more diverse group, you bring in more solutions, more creativity, and more problem-solving than with a homogeneous group.”
Another made an even more direct connection to childhood experience: “Having been part of that minority ecosystem for so many years, I recognize what it will be like for others not to be included. I expect, teach, and coach people to focus outward instead of inward.”
This wasn’t about following HR mandates or avoiding lawsuits. It was about leveraging difference for competitive advantage—and about creating workplaces that reflected the complex, multicultural world these leaders had navigated since childhood.
The Heterophily Hypothesis
Steenkamp’s research introduces a provocative concept: heterophily as a learnable trait, or at least one that can be cultivated through the right experiences. While personality research suggests that openness to experience has both genetic and environmental components, her findings indicate that early exposure to diversity—particularly when it requires adaptation and resilience—can fundamentally shape how leaders approach inclusion later in life.
The model that emerges is surprisingly straightforward: Children who experience frequent moves, exposure to different languages and cultures, and the feeling of being outsiders develop comfort with the unfamiliar. This comfort translates into curiosity rather than fear when encountering difference. As adults, they naturally seek out diverse perspectives, build heterogeneous teams, and create inclusive environments—not because they’ve been trained to, but because homogeneity feels limiting and boring.
The Challenge for Organizations
If Steenkamp’s research is correct, it poses a challenge for organizations trying to develop inclusive leadership through conventional training. You can teach people to recognize bias, to use inclusive language, or to follow diverse hiring practices. But can you teach someone to genuinely love difference if they’ve spent their entire life in homogeneous environments?
The answer may lie in expanding what we consider formative experiences. Several participants noted that their leadership styles continued to evolve through their careers, influenced by partners, colleagues, clients, and the various organizational cultures they encountered. One male executive credited his feminist wife with helping him recognize unconscious biases. Others spoke about learning from joint ventures, international assignments, and cross-cultural teams.
This suggests that while childhood experiences may create a foundation for heterophily, it’s not the only pathway. Adults who deliberately seek out diverse experiences, who put themselves in situations where they’re the minority, who travel not as tourists but as learners—they too can develop the cognitive flexibility and emotional intelligence that characterize inclusive leaders.
Beyond Diversity Metrics
Perhaps the most important insight from Steenkamp’s research is that truly inclusive leadership can’t be reduced to diversity metrics or compliance checklists. It emerges from a deeper place—a genuine curiosity about others, a comfort with complexity, and often, a personal history of navigating between different worlds.
“I don’t believe in diversity in the sense of ticking boxes,” one participant insisted. “I actually think about creating an inclusive community. People will say, ‘We employ disabled people’—but if they really understood our business model, they’d realize that we don’t. We actually just open the job to ‘whoever is best for the job’. On top of this, we have to deal with our clients who have their own biases.”
This leader’s comment captures a crucial tension and blind spot: even when individual leaders embrace heterophily, they operate within systems—organizational cultures, industry norms, client expectations—that often pull toward homophily, whether there is an awareness of this or not. Breaking these patterns requires not just individual transformation but systemic change.
The Path Forward
As we navigate a world where AI systems trained on historical bias threaten to amplify homogeneity, and where political polarization makes difference feel threatening rather than enriching, Steenkamp’s research offers a potential path forward. Rather than fighting against the human tendency toward homophily through mandates and metrics alone, we might focus on cultivating genuine heterophily—a love of difference that makes inclusion feel natural rather than forced.
This could mean rethinking leadership development to include more international rotations, cross-cultural assignments, and opportunities to be the outsider. It could mean valuing unconventional career paths and diverse life experiences when promoting leaders. It could mean creating space for people to share the childhood experiences that shaped their perspectives.
Most fundamentally, it means recognizing that the best leaders for our increasingly diverse, interconnected world may be those who learned early on that being different isn’t something to overcome—it’s an advantage to embrace, both in ourselves and others.
References and Further Reading
Primary Source
Steenkamp, V. (2020). A Love of the Different: How Heterophily is Cultivated in Childhood and How It Impacts the Mindset of Inclusive Leaders—A Psychodynamic Examination. INSEAD Executive Masters in Coaching and Consulting for Change thesis.
Secondary Sources
Baer, D. (2014, May 30). “If You Want to Get Hired, Act Like Your Potential Boss.” Business Insider.
Bourke, J., & Dillon, B. (2019). “The Six Signature Traits of Inclusive Leadership.” Deloitte Review, 25.
Christensen, A. P., Cotter, K. N., & Silvia, P. J. (2019). “Reopening Openness to Experience: A Network Analysis of Four Openness to Experience Inventories.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(6), 574–588.
Dweck, C. S. (2017). “From Needs to Goals and Representations: Foundations for a Unified Theory of Motivation, Personality, and Development.” Psychological Review, 124(6), 689–719.
Graham, L. (2013). Bouncing Back: Rewiring Your Brain for Maximum Resilience and Well-Being. New World Library.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. SAGE Publications.
Hunt, V., Layton, D., & Prince, S. (2015). “Why Diversity Matters.” McKinsey & Company.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2006). The Leadership Mystique: Leading Behavior in the Human Enterprise (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Llopis, G. (2017, January 16). “5 Reasons Diversity and Inclusion Fails.” Forbes.
Long, S. (Ed.). (2013). Socioanalytic Methods: Discovering the Hidden in Organisations and Social Systems. Karnac Books.
Lozares, C., Verd, J. M., Cruz, I., & Barranco, O. (2014). “Homophily and Heterophily in Personal Networks: From Mutual Acquaintance to Relationship Intensity.” Quality & Quantity, 48, 2657–2670.
Mandela, N. (1995). Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. Little, Brown and Company.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). “The Five-Factor Theory of Personality.” In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). Guilford Press.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Mor Barak, M. (2017). Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Rivera, L. A. (2012). “Hiring as Cultural Matching: The Case of Elite Professional Service Firms.” American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Sparkman, D. J., Eidelman, S., & Blanchar, J. C. (2016). “Multicultural Experiences Reduce Prejudice Through Personality Shifts in Openness to Experience.” European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(7), 840–853.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). “Contending with Group Image: The Psychology of Stereotype and Social Identity Threat.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379–440.
Van de Loo, E. (2016). “The Art of Listening.” In M. F. R. Kets de Vries, K. Korotov, E. Florent-Treacy, & C. Rook (Eds.), Coach and Couch: The Psychology of Making Better Leaders (pp. 121–137). Palgrave Macmillan.
 | A guest post by
|