Inclusion is increasingly recognized as a critical leadership issue, yet research points to effectiveness variability among diversity and inclusion initiatives, indicative of potential policy-practice decoupling. Drawing on climate theory, we develop supervisors’ inclusive leadership and climate for inclusion and introducing CEO’s inclusive leadership and group diversity as moderators. To gain a deep understanding of decoupling, we use a multilevel approach and include in our model both top level leadership (CEOs), where espoused policies are determined, and group level leadership (supervisor), where enacted behaviors are experienced. We offer a novel perspective on climate theory for inclusion, which we have identified as “the anomaly of climate for inclusion.” Unlike other organizational climate facets, inclusion climate is shaped not only by the shared experiences of group members but also by their identities. Individuals from minority or underrepresented groups might experience decoupling in ways that are similar to other members from the same identity group even if they belong to different work groups. Our model, therefore, explains the process in which leaders create inclusive climate and point to boundary conditions in the process. We focus on two climate indicators: climate level and climate strength, and indicate that both are essential for understanding inclusion climate. Our conceptual model suggests that truly inclusive leaders would succeed at minimizing policy-practice coupling as perceived by all group members, not just historically dominant or high-status members. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Numerous studies have attempted to explain prosocial behaviors. Most of these studies focus on individual and contextual factors. Although existing data on the national level have demonstrated significant differences between countries in the frequency of prosocial behaviors, the reasons for these differences have rarely been explored. We hypothesize that Hofstede’s national culture perspective can explain this variance. We applied five societal culture structures to explaining cross-national variations: individualism (IND)–collectivism, power distance (PD), uncertainty avoidance (UA), masculinity, and future orientation (FO). Analysis of data from 66 countries supported our hypotheses: IND correlated positively and PD correlated negatively with prosocial behaviors. Contrary to our hypothesis, UA and FO correlated negatively with prosocial behaviors. Furthermore, PD and UA interact with IND in prediction of prosocial behaviors. We further explored the effect of the cultural dimensions on specific prosocial behaviors separately and found which of them are related to the cultural dimensions.