Belonging has become one of the defining conversations in modern leadership. Organisations invest significant time and resources into creating inclusive workplaces, strengthening culture and improving employee engagement. Yet despite these efforts, genuine belonging is rarely created by policies alone.  More often, it is shaped by the small, everyday interactions between leaders, colleagues and teams.

One of the greatest challenges in leadership is that we don’t always see our own behaviours the way others experience them. We judge ourselves by our intentions, while others experience the impact of our actions. That awareness gap is often where belonging begins to break down. Throughout my career working across infrastructure, government, energy, construction and community engagement, I’ve observed three behaviours that can quietly erode belonging, despite often coming from a place of good intentions.

These are referred to as the Three Ps.

Drawing on concepts from inclusive leadership, psychological safety and community engagement, this framework reflects established leadership theory as well as my own professional experiences of what helps people thrive—and what unintentionally holds them back.

Patronising

Patronising or condescending behaviour occurs when we talk at people rather than with them.  It can sound like reassurance, advice or expertise, but it often leaves the other person feeling underestimated, unheard or incapable. Whether intentional or not, it creates an imbalance where one person’s perspective is valued more highly than another’s.

It might look like:

• Explaining someone’s own area of expertise back to them.

• Dismissing ideas before they’ve been fully explored.

• Assuming someone lacks knowledge because of their age, experience, gender or background.

• Offering unsolicited advice instead of asking questions.

• Correcting rather than coaching.

Harvard professor Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety highlights that people are more likely to contribute ideas, ask questions and raise concerns when they feel respected and safe to do so. When people feel patronised, that psychological safety begins to erode, along with innovation, learning and trust.

Creating belonging begins with curiosity rather than certainty. The most effective leaders recognise that expertise exists throughout an organisation, not just in those with the most authority.

Paternalism

Paternalism is the belief that we know what is best for someone else without genuinely involving them in the decision, and it often comes from a desire to help, protect or support, yet it can unintentionally remove autonomy from the very people we are trying to empower.

In the workplace, this can look like:

• Micromanaging capable employees.

• Making decisions on behalf of others without consulting them.

• Assuming people need constant direction rather than trusting them to deliver.

• Withholding opportunities because you believe you’re protecting someone from failure.

• Believing experience automatically outweighs another person’s perspective.

Most of us have experienced a leader who spends more time directing how work should be done than creating the conditions for others to succeed.

Educator and philosopher Paulo Freire challenged this way of thinking decades ago, arguing that meaningful progress occurs when people become active participants rather than passive recipients of someone else’s decisions. The same principle applies in leadership. Great leaders don’t simply provide answers—they ask better questions, create opportunities for others to contribute, and build confidence by sharing ownership rather than controlling it.

Pity

The third P is perhaps the most subtle: Pity. Pity encourages us to see individuals or communities through a lens of disadvantage rather than recognising their strengths, resilience and capability.  It can sound compassionate, but it often communicates low expectations.

It might look like:

• Constantly stepping in to “help” without being asked.

• Avoiding giving someone challenging work because you assume they won’t cope.

• Publicly correcting or rescuing someone instead of coaching them privately.

• Defining people by what they need rather than what they contribute.

• Speaking about people rather than engaging with them.

Compassion is important. Pity is something different.  Belonging isn’t created by rescuing people. It is created by respecting them, recognising the skills they bring to the table and trusting them to contribute meaningfully. Support should empower people to participate, grow and succeed—not define them by what they lack.

When Good Intentions Miss the Mark

One of the reasons these behaviours can be difficult to recognise is that they rarely stem from ill intent. In fact, I often think they stem from what I call the Three Gs:

• Generosity

• Giving

• Guidance

Most leaders genuinely want to help.  Micromanagers often believe they are being supportive. Experienced professionals want to share what they have learned. Leaders want to protect their teams from mistakes. The challenge is that good intentions do not always create positive experiences.

Leadership researcher Brené Brown reminds us that empathy begins with curiosity rather than assumptions. Similarly, research into inclusive leadership suggests people experience greater engagement when they both feel they belong and believe their unique perspectives are genuinely valued, and that distinction matters.

Every leadership conversation happens on more than one level. There is what we intend to communicate, what the other person hears, and the experience they walk away with. As leaders, we often spend considerable time refining our message but far less time considering how it will be received.

Leadership researcher Dr Tasha Eurich has found that while around 95% of people believe they are self-aware, only an estimated 10–15% actually are. That gap helps explain why behaviours that feel supportive to us may be experienced very differently by those around us.

There is a significant difference between helping someone and unintentionally making them feel smaller in the process.  I’ve experienced both ends of that spectrum.

Early in my career, I was trusted to manage part of the demobilisation of a six-year Tier One infrastructure project, work alongside the commercial team and help coordinate day-to-day operations. That trust built my confidence, expanded my capability and left me excited to take on greater responsibility.

In another role, the leadership approach was very different. Tasks that could easily have been managed independently were routinely monitored and scheduled, creating an environment where autonomy was replaced by constant oversight. It wasn’t personal—the manager treated everyone consistently—but the outcome was very different. Rather than feeling empowered, I felt my capability was being questioned. The difference wasn’t technical competence. It was trust.

Building Belonging Through Everyday Leadership

Belonging isn’t reserved for executives or organisational strategies. Every conversation, meeting, project and community interaction provides an opportunity to either strengthen or weaken it. The question isn’t simply whether our intentions are good. It’s whether our actions leave people feeling respected, heard and valued.

Belonging requires leaders to continually question not only what they are communicating, but how it is being experienced and when we move beyond patronising, paternalism and pity, we make room for something much more powerful: genuine partnership.

When people are trusted as capable contributors rather than managed as problems to be solved, belonging becomes something people don’t just hear about—it becomes something they experience, and perhaps belonging isn’t something we create by trying harder to include people; it’s something we create by removing the behaviours that unintentionally make people feel smaller.

Maybe the real question isn’t:

“Am I a good leader?”

It’s:

“How do people feel after interacting with me?”