Inclusion refers to employees feeling accepted, valued, respected, and treated fairly in the workplace ([16]; [28]). Employees feel included when they can participate in workplace activities, express their ideas, contribute to decisions, and know their perspectives are considered by teams and leaders ([13]; [74]; [77]; [78]). Inclusion is also strengthened when organizations recognize and use diverse viewpoints ([68]). Leadership behaviors and organizational systems help create inclusion by making employees feel respected, supported, and acknowledged ([23]; [32]; [93]). Employees who feel included are more likely to experience psychological safety, empowerment, and support, and to have access to important information, opportunities, and resources ([52]; [40]; [95]).

Beyond generalizations, inclusion comprises four primary parts: visibility, voice, access to resources, and belonging.

1.1.1. Being Visible

Visibility refers to whether an individual’s work is observable, identifiable, and attributed to them in ways that signal value and relevance, particularly in environments where physical presence does not naturally foster awareness ([50]; [60]). It is fundamentally grounded in recognition and awareness. Employees are considered visible when their participation is noticed, their contributions are identifiable within organizational processes, and their efforts are acknowledged rather than overlooked ([84]; [87]). This includes both direct recognition and the extent to which work remains attributable to individuals over time, reinforcing their presence within the organization ([65]; [101]).

The ways in which work is tracked, displayed, and evaluated influence whether employee efforts are transparent and attributable ([12]; [71]; [86]). Visibility is influenced by whether employees’ presence and participation are perceptible within the work environment, contributing to their recognition as active contributors rather than peripheral participants ([29]; [81]). When employee input is clearly connected to outcomes and acknowledged within organizational processes, individuals are more likely to be seen as contributors ([52]; [67]). The extent to which communication, collaboration, and knowledge exchange make employees’ work noticeable influences how individuals are perceived ([72]), especially in environments with differing communication styles and varying cultural norms ([64]).

1.1.2. Having a Voice

Having a voice refers to the extent to which employees can express ideas, concerns, perspectives, and dissent, and have those inputs meaningfully considered in organizational processes. Inclusion, in this sense, involves more than the opportunity to speak. It reflects whether employees’ contributions are taken seriously and can influence decisions and outcomes ([13]; [74]). At its core, voice represents active participation in organizational systems, where individuals are not passive participants but contributors whose perspectives shape direction and action ([59]; [77]; [78]), encompassing both formal mechanisms, such as structured participation in processes, and informal opportunities, such as informally providing ideas and perspectives ([84]; [67]).

Employees who feel included share ideas and engage in discussions because those aspects inform organizational processes. Employees provide suggestions, raise concerns, and offer differing viewpoints without being excluded from consideration ([32]; [34]). Ultimately, when employees see their input reflected in outcomes, they are more likely to perceive themselves as sufficiently included ([8]; [70]; [106]).

1.1.3. Having Resource Access

Inclusion occurs when employees have access to resources such as information, tools, systems, and decision-making processes that enable meaningful participation ([45]; [74]; [78]), enabling employees to shape organizational direction ([13]; [59]; [68]; [77]; [40]). Employees can engage in discussions, provide input, and influence outcomes, which supports a sense of autonomy ([8]; [84]; [67]; [70]; [106]).

From an organizational dynamics perspective, employees who feel included are not hindered by organizational and cultural dynamics, which often shape information access by influencing who can participate and whose contributions are enabled. These barriers can create disparities in exposure to information and in access to decision-making channels ([64]; [99]).

From a technological perspective, all employees have access to digital platforms, systems, and electronic information. These enhance their participation at work. Additionally, these employees understand how to navigate these systems, which translates into access to information that subsequently enables influence over organizational decisions ([71]; [89]; [103]). Successful use of and navigation within a system that enables communication and data access enhances employees’ opportunities for participation ([50]; [87]).

1.1.4. Feeling of Belonging

Belonging refers to how connected, valued, and integrated employees feel within the organization ([23]; [28]). It captures the emotional side of inclusion, where employees feel linked to people, culture, and purpose, not just involved in tasks ([82]; [93]). This form of inclusion develops through relationships, interactions, and a supportive environment that fosters connections with colleagues and alignment with organizational values ([1]; [69]). Feeling respected and treated fairly strengthens this connection and sense of identity ([47]; [99]).

Belonging is also shaped by feeling valued, where recognition and appreciation reinforce emotional ties and membership ([23]; [65]), closely linked to psychological safety and trust ([32]; [34]; [59]; [62]; [77]). It is strengthened through shared activities and collaboration that help employees see their role within a larger system, while a lack of access or inclusion can weaken that connection ([8]; [29]; [105]).

In digital and remote settings, belonging depends on social interaction, where limited engagement can lead to isolation and disconnection ([56]; [57]; [60]; [107]). Conversely, strong connections and collaboration reinforce a sense of belonging and support team integration ([11]; [44]; [87]; [106]).

Inclusion is a key driver of employee engagement and performance, enabling individuals to contribute fully and sustain effectiveness. Perceived leader inclusion improves engagement, creativity, and performance while reducing strain ([109]), and is linked to higher satisfaction and organizational effectiveness ([82]). It strengthens engagement through psychological safety and meaningfulness ([66]) and improves performance through greater commitment across roles ([16]), with consistent links to satisfaction and overall performance ([33]).

Inclusive leadership is essential. It promotes innovation, motivation, and proactive contributions ([5]; [59]; [62]), while inclusion and diversity practices improve job performance and satisfaction ([74]). Supportive environments further enhance well-being, engagement, and performance ([85]), especially those encouraging knowledge sharing and interaction ([1]; [13]). Leadership that fosters trust, participation, and empowerment improves engagement and reduces burnout ([9]; [75]; [70]; [94]) and is supported by empathy and interpersonal skills ([2]).

At the organizational level, inclusion supports stronger decision-making, engagement, and effectiveness ([78]; [82]) and is linked to creativity, commitment, well-being, and reduced turnover ([28]). It also improves adaptability, productivity, and outcomes through supportive practices and talent management ([52]; [93]; [40]). Non-inclusive environments reduce performance and decision quality ([41]; [101]), while positive organizational environments further support motivation and performance ([25]).

Inclusion also strengthens belonging, motivation, and retention ([23]), while cognitive diversity enhances creativity and team outcomes ([68]). Inclusion consistently improves engagement and performance ([32]; [67]; [95]), including in virtual settings where trust and connection are critical ([11]; [40]; [87]). People-centered practices such as recognition, alignment, and development further strengthen engagement and performance ([14]; [52]; [65]; [69]).

For this study, virtual employees are defined as those who are either fully remote or hybrid. With virtual employees, inclusion is more complex in digital environments due to the interplay among individual, group, and organizational factors shaping the employee experience, making consistent inclusion difficult in evolving, technology-driven workplaces ([4]). Inclusion efforts in the digital environment often fall short when organizations rely on isolated approaches, such as training, without addressing broader cultural and structural factors ([21]; [108]). Remote work further complicates inclusion by reducing face-to-face interaction, informal communication, and interpersonal connection ([56]; [60]). When employees are remote, leaders have fewer informal cues for understanding employee needs, increasing the risk of disengagement unless communication is intentionally structured ([11]; [18]). This can result in isolation, reduced connections, and burnout ([84]; [90]).

Among digital employees, digital inequality limits inclusion through disparities in access, skills, and effective use of technology, restricting participation as work becomes more digital ([31]; [43]). These gaps vary across user profiles and persist even when access exists, requiring approaches beyond one-size-fits-all solutions ([7]; [55]; [57]). At the same time, digital systems introduce structural risks when expectations to adapt to technology overlook existing barriers ([22]), and power can concentrate within systems and decision-making tools ([103]). The use of AI and algorithmic systems, which can vary among employees, further increases the risk of bias and exclusion if not actively managed across virtual and non-virtual employees ([12]; [81]; [86]; [89]).

Differences in communication patterns, tool use, and digital competence lead to uneven participation and engagement ([50]), while remote work conditions amplify disparities in resources and work environments ([44]). Without redesigning workflows and access, in-person assumptions do not translate effectively to digital settings ([79]; [105]). Digital transformation continues to reshape work, reinforcing that inclusion remains an evolving challenge requiring adaptation ([88]). Although digital tools can expand participation, they can also introduce barriers depending on access and design ([71]), and misalignment between leadership and culture can further limit inclusion ([72]).

Reduced physical interaction also increases the risk of misunderstanding and exclusion, particularly in diverse teams ([64]). Digital work environments can contribute to stress, overload, and disconnection if not managed effectively ([110]), reinforcing the need to prioritize communication quality, well-being, and relationships ([47]). As work becomes more distributed and technology-driven, inclusion can no longer rely on proximity; instead, it requires intentional leadership, structured communication, and coordinated systems ([3]; [26]). Overall, inclusion in digital environments is not automatic and must be supported through deliberate, adaptive strategies.

The lack of leadership inclusion strategies harms employee well-being, attitudes, and performance. Lower perceived inclusion increases resource depletion, work-to-family conflict, psychological withdrawal, and reduced participation ([4]; [109]), while inclusion supports psychological safety, meaningfulness, and personal investment ([66]). Employees who feel excluded report lower job satisfaction, weaker attachment, and reduced motivation, as leadership behaviors like integrity and support shape trust and experience ([6]; [33]). It also reduces self-esteem, well-being, and innovation, with poor work design further harming outcomes ([5]; [51]; [85]).

These effects intensify in digital environments, where a lack of support, skills, or access lowers self-efficacy, engagement, and performance ([56]; [57]; [105]). Poor communication, weak leadership support, and limited flexibility drive frustration, detachment, and reduced commitment ([53]; [84]), while inconsistent practices increase disengagement and feelings of being undervalued ([46]; [92]). Virtual conditions also increase burnout, isolation, and reduced focus ([24]; [36]).

Reduced trust, communication, and connection in virtual settings lower motivation and performance ([19]; [54]). Digital fatigue, unclear communication, blurred boundaries, and lack of structure further weaken well-being and engagement ([17]; [27]; [39]; [100]; [104]), leading to lower productivity and commitment ([61]). Limited digital access and high stress further reduce confidence and effectiveness ([15]; [41]).

Leadership remains central. A lack of recognition, support, and alignment reduces motivation and satisfaction, whereas inclusive practices improve confidence and engagement ([75]; [65]; [67]; [69]; [106]). Without inclusion, employees face higher burnout and emotional exhaustion, especially in digital environments ([90]; [94]; [110]). Weak support and exclusion increase disengagement, loneliness, and reduced commitment, harming well-being and performance ([25]; [107]), while inclusive leadership improves motivation and psychological outcomes ([34]). Overall, the absence of inclusion increases stress, disengagement, and reduced effectiveness.

The lack of leadership inclusion strategies weakens team functioning by reducing trust, collaboration, and cohesion. Inclusion is built through daily interactions, and when absent, employee behaviors shift in ways that harm team outcomes ([21]). Positive, socially engaging environments support collaboration and knowledge sharing, showing how inclusion directly affects team effectiveness ([1]). Disengagement at the individual level can spread across the team, lowering cohesion and climate, especially in remote settings ([84]).

In virtual and hybrid teams, weak leadership amplifies these issues. Teams depend on trust, communication, and shared understanding, and without support, coordination, and effectiveness decline ([19]; [24]). Low trust reduces knowledge sharing and motivation ([54]), while poor communication and unclear expectations create misalignment and lower productivity ([35]; [38]; [39]; [100]). These challenges are greater in global teams, where distance and cultural differences increase the risk of misunderstanding ([73]).

Communication and conflict management are central. Poor communication weakens team collaboration, while strong communication improves team alignment and trust ([104]). Unresolved conflict reduces performance, while effective management strengthens team cohesion ([37]). Virtual settings increase risks of coordination issues and isolation without structured leadership support ([27]; [40]), and weak leader–member relationships reduce trust and unity among teams ([9]).

Hybrid dynamics also create challenges. Without intentional management, teams face fragmentation, silos, and reduced shared understanding ([18]). Low participation weakens engagement and alignment, while inclusive involvement improves coordination and outcomes ([8]; [70]). Burnout also spreads across teams, reducing collaboration and effectiveness, especially under digital workload strain ([94]; [110]). These shared perceptions shape team performance, where positive perceptions strengthen cohesion and alignment, while weak inclusion undermines them ([25]). Inclusive and structured participation improves engagement and collaboration, reinforcing the role of inclusion in overall team effectiveness ([80]).

The lack of leadership-inclusion strategies harms organizational effectiveness by shaping structures, systems, and employee experience. A lack of inclusion reduces productivity, limits innovation, and disrupts coordination, underscoring the need to embed inclusion in leadership, systems, and organizational design ([99]). Weak managerial support, limited HR responsiveness, and unfair policies reduce inclusion and performance ([4]), while inclusive environments improve morale and effectiveness ([83]). HRM strategies, including fair policies and structured support, are central to shaping inclusion and perceptions of opportunity ([108]).

Without alignment between leadership and organizational practices, productivity and effectiveness decline ([51]; [83]). These challenges increase in digital contexts, where digital inequality limits participation, innovation, and efficiency ([43]). This is because leadership and organizational alignment, such as with HR, are critical for performance. Strong integration of learning systems and leadership improves capability and outcomes ([53]), while weak alignment reduces productivity and long-term effectiveness ([92]). Sustainable leadership supports retention and stability, whereas its absence creates ongoing performance challenges ([46]).

Organizational performance also depends on managing digital and distributed work. Organizations that adapt through communication and support maintain performance, while others face productivity and stability issues ([36]). In virtual and global teams, weak leadership reduces coordination and efficiency at scale ([38]; [73]). This also permeates broader processes. Effective conflict management improves decision-making and innovation, while poor management reduces effectiveness ([37]). Lack of engagement and recognition further weakens performance ([14]), while technology and AI systems shape coordination and outcomes ([12]; [71]).

Leaders face direct consequences when inclusion strategies are absent, as their behavior shapes employees’ experience and outcomes. Failures in inclusion reflect back on leader effectiveness, credibility, and impact, creating a feedback loop of reduced performance ([51]; [109]). A primary impact is reduced leadership effectiveness, as a lack of openness and support lowers engagement and participation, limiting team performance and innovation ([5]; [66]; [62]). Leaders also experience erosion of trust and credibility, as non-inclusive behavior can be perceived as unfair or inconsistent, weakening relationships and reducing their ability to influence and align teams ([6]; [9]; [21]).

Leaders are also more likely to be held accountable for negative outcomes, such as burnout and disengagement, when inclusion fails to buffer job demands ([90]; [94]; [110]). At the same time, the absence of inclusion increases cognitive and operational strain, especially in virtual settings, where leaders must compensate by expending greater effort on communication, coordination, and trust-building without the structured systems in place ([18]; [40]). Misalignment in responsibility can further lead leaders to underestimate their role in inclusion, reducing accountability and weakening their impact ([22]). Overall, lack of inclusion reduces effectiveness, weakens relationships, increases strain, and undermines leadership success ([75]).

Leaders often struggle to lead virtually because virtual leadership is shaped by structural inequalities and operational complexity, requiring leaders to adapt how work is organized and supported. Leaders face challenges stemming from differences in digital access, skills, and employee needs, requiring more flexible and individualized approaches ([7]; [22]; [55]). Operational demands further add complexity, as leaders must redesign workflows, simplify processes, and ensure systems support remote work ([79]), while maintaining cohesion, motivation, and engagement without physical presence ([84]). Training and development require active leadership involvement. Balancing performance, well-being, and fairness all add additional strain on the leader ([53]; [46]; [92]).

Reduced visibility is a central constraint in virtual environments, directly affecting trust, oversight, and leadership effectiveness. Loss of informal in-person interaction limits insight into team dynamics ([11]). This constrains leaders’ ability to build trust, monitor, and motivate employees ([24]). In some cases, transitioning to remote work further widens gaps in team coordination ([36]), while reduced oversight and reliance on digital tools complicate productivity and accountability ([39]). These challenges intensify in the context of limited informal interaction and in global teams, where time zones, cultures, and even local personality differences increase complexity ([38]; [73]; [100]).

Communication and technology limitations shape how effectively leaders engage and coordinate virtual teams. A lack of nonverbal cues and immediate feedback reduces clarity and relationship-building ([27]; [104]), while poor channel selection and information overload reduce effectiveness ([30]; [49]). Leaders must adopt more structured communication to sustain engagement and productivity ([39]). At the same time, e-leadership requires new competencies that traditional approaches often fail to address ([19]), and many leaders struggle to adapt their communication strategies or fully leverage digital tools ([54]).

Virtual leadership is further constrained by gaps in readiness, employee voice, and guiding frameworks. Leaders often lack the preparation to support and develop employees virtually ([102]), while coordination, alignment, and engagement become more difficult in digital settings ([98]). Telework introduces challenges related to distance, boundaries, and well-being, reinforced by broader digital transformation ([10]; [88]). Voice is also shaped by digital systems, as platforms influence how employees share ideas and participate in decisions ([71]; [103]), while limited system knowledge and communication structures can restrict participation and shape how ideas are expressed and heard ([50]; [87]; [89]). A broader gap remains in understanding virtual leadership, making it harder to manage performance, relationships, and engagement without clear frameworks ([35]). Overall, virtual leadership requires managing communication, trust, technology, workload, and evolving work conditions simultaneously, yet leadership frameworks have not fully adapted to digital work, leaving gaps in guidance for effectively leading and including virtual employees ([3]; [26]; [40]).

Leaders also have difficulty leading hybrid employees when teams operate in both in-person and remote contexts, with different interaction patterns, access levels, and expectations. Leaders must continuously adapt to geographic dispersion, digital reliance, and varied communication dynamics ([35]), while balancing tensions such as autonomy versus control and flexibility versus structure ([17]).

Inconsistencies in communication, access, and engagement further complicate leadership. Uneven communication flows and delays can weaken coordination and alignment ([63]; [100]), while remote employees risk being excluded from informal interactions and key information often prioritized for in-person employees, ultimately reducing team cohesion ([63]).

Maintaining fairness and visibility are also key challenges. Proximity bias can provide advantages for in-office employees by giving them more attention and opportunities ([58]), and uneven access to information can lead to misalignment and inconsistent participation for a hybrid team ([18]). Additionally, misalignment between team design and hybrid execution reduces collaboration and trust ([76]), while middle managers face additional pressure to coordinate across locations and balance expectations ([96]).

This study used a systematic literature review with thematic synthesis to examine leadership strategies that support inclusion among virtual employees. Only peer-reviewed scholarly sources were included to maintain credibility and methodological rigor. A structured and repeatable search process was conducted across academic databases using predefined inclusion criteria focused on relevance, context, and publication quality. Selected studies were critically appraised using an adapted Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist to evaluate methodological soundness, validity, and applicability ([20]). Data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. This process included iterative coding, pattern identification, and the development of higher-order themes. The approach allowed findings from scholarly research to be integrated while maintaining analytical transparency and conceptual consistency (Figure 1).

4.1.1. Search Strategy, Selection, Inclusion, and Deduplication

This systematic literature review draws from credible peer-reviewed studies. Initial search terms were developed to identify sources aligned with the study’s purpose. All articles were sourced via ProQuest and Sage databases, as these two were reputable databases accessible to the researcher and had proven successful in prior research. The following search strings were used in the initial search process:

Figure 1. Dymacz’s systematic literary analysis with thematic synthesis process.

“Inclusive leadership” AND “remote work”“Inclusive leadership” AND “virtual teams”“Leadership strategies” AND “employee inclusion” AND “remote employees”“Employee inclusion” AND “hybrid work”“Employee engagement” AND “inclusion” AND “remote teams”“Psychological safety” AND “virtual teams” AND leadership“Knowledge sharing” AND “virtual teams”“Sense of belonging” AND “remote employees”“Communication” AND “remote teams” AND leadership(“Inclusive leadership” OR “leadership strategies”) AND (“remote work” OR “virtual teams”) AND (“inclusion” OR “engagement” OR “belonging”)

Boolean operators, including AND and OR, were used to refine the search results. The publication year was used as a search parameter, focusing on literature published between 2022 and 2026, with greater emphasis on studies published from 2024 onward to remain relevant to current organizational environments.

Articles and sources were selected based on their relevance to the research question. The inclusion criteria were as follows:

Focus on leadership strategies for increasing inclusion among virtual employeesPublished in English or reputably translated into English From a credible scholarly journalMarked as peer-reviewedAccessible full-text format

Exclusion criteria were as follows:

Articles not related to leadership strategies, inclusion, or virtual/hybrid employeesArticles not published in English or without a reliable English translationSources that were not peer-reviewed or not published in credible scholarly journalsArticles without accessible full-text availabilityOpinion pieces, blogs, editorials, dissertations, or non-scholarly publications without empirical or scholarly support

The main databases accessed were ProQuest and Sage. First, articles were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Second, abstracts were reviewed to determine alignment with the study criteria. Third, sources that met the inclusion criteria received more in-depth attention by skimming the articles. A total of 108 peer-reviewed sources were found across 80 journals. Current articles were defined as those within 5 years of the research, meaning 2022 through 2026. These amounted to 93 articles. Prior to 2022, there were 15 articles. The majority of articles were from the past three years, with 13 from 2024, 53 from 2025, and 14 from 2026. Deduplication was performed to ensure that the located articles were not duplicates of those previously included in the literature matrix. If the article was previously included and was therefore a duplicate, it was removed from the analysis. Otherwise, if the article was unique, it was placed into a literary matrix.

Table 1 shows the structure of the literary matrix used.

Table 1. Literary matrix structure.

4.1.2. Evaluation of Sources

After placement of information from 108 articles into a literary matrix, the sources were fully read and evaluated using an adapted version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist to support consistent assessment across the scholarly literature ([20]). The CASP tool was used to evaluate methodological rigor, including the clarity of research objectives, the suitability of the research design, data collection and analysis methods, ethical considerations, and the transparency of findings. Additional evaluation criteria were also applied to assess source relevance, publication recency, and overall credibility. Based on this combined appraisal approach, each source was categorized as high, medium, or low quality. This adaptation supported a more structured and comparative evaluation process while remaining aligned with established critical appraisal practices. The option to remove any articles after the CASP evaluation was not used, as all articles were deemed sufficiently valuable for inclusion.

The CASP evaluations were guided by predefined criteria to reduce subjectivity. Studies rated as high demonstrated clear methodological alignment, strong data collection and analysis procedures, transparent reporting, and appropriate rigor for the selected design. Medium ratings were assigned when studies met most quality expectations but contained moderate limitations, such as weaker recruitment detail, limited generalizability, or reduced methodological transparency. Low ratings reflected substantial methodological weaknesses, missing rigor elements, or insufficient reporting. N/A was used when a criterion was not applicable to the study design or article type. Ratings were determined by consistency in methodological clarity, sampling adequacy, analytical rigor, ethical transparency, and the overall trustworthiness of the findings, rather than by personal interpretation alone.

Table 2 shows the breakdown of CASP article rating counts, showing how many articles fell into the High, Medium, Low, and N/A criteria for each of the gradable CASP dimensions.

Table 2. Quantification of article CASP ratings.

All 108 articles were retained in the review because the overall body of evidence demonstrated consistently strong quality in the areas considered most critical to this study, particularly journal quality, methodological rigor, data collection, data analysis, and presentation of findings. While some studies showed moderate or lower ratings in areas such as recruitment or ethics reporting, the researcher determined that the overall strength and relevance of the studies supported their inclusion in the review.

4.1.3. Thematic Synthesis

After source evaluation, thematic analysis was conducted using a modified version of the thematic synthesis framework developed by [97] to support systematic coding and structured narrative development. The analysis followed several sequential steps. First, relevant text segments and key insights on virtual employee inclusion were extracted from each article via paraphrasing and documented in the thematic analysis table (see Table 3). Multiple key insight entries were recorded for each article to capture distinct findings, observations, leadership practices, communication behaviors, and employee experiences discussed throughout the literature. Second, the extracted insights were manually reviewed and inductively coded by the primary researcher to identify recurring concepts and shared patterns across sources. Descriptive codes were developed from recurring ideas identified in the key insight entries and were continuously reviewed and refined throughout the analysis to maintain consistency and alignment with the research objective. Third, similar descriptive codes were grouped and consolidated into broader thematic categories through iterative comparison across literature. The final five themes were selected based on their recurrence across multiple sources, conceptual relevance to the research problem, and ability to meaningfully explain factors influencing virtual employee inclusion. The synthesis remained inductively grounded in the literature while being systematically structured to support the study’s objectives, and the final thematic findings were presented in narrative form. Finally, upon themes being generated, actions were created through analysis of themes, which were specific and practical activities that leaders could do in order to improve inclusion, as later shown in Table 4 and Figure 2.

Table 3. Thematic analysis codes and themes.

Table 4. Virtual inclusive leadership strategic actions table.

Figure 2. Dymacz’s virtual leadership inclusion strategy framework.

Using the thematic analysis, 12 codes were generated. Five themes were then generated from the codes through analysis. These are shown in Table 3.

5.1.1. Work Visibility

The first thematic finding is that leaders must intentionally design systems that make employee contributions visible, understood, and recognized in virtual and hybrid environments.

Leaders must establish clear expectations for how work is shared, tracked, and communicated, since visibility does not occur organically in virtual settings. Setting goals, reinforcing performance discussions, and maintaining feedback mechanisms ensure alignment and consistent visibility of contributions ([24]). Without these expectations, visibility becomes uneven, favoring more vocal or physically present employees.

To achieve visibility expectations, leaders should design structured workflows and communication systems that make progress and contributions transparent. This includes using digital tools, defined workflows, and scheduled updates to ensure consistent visibility across team members ([10]; [30]; [49]; [98]). These systems replace informal observation and ensure work is consistently recognized.

From an organizational perspective, visibility increases when employees understand how their work connects to broader goals. Leaders must consistently clarify how individual contributions support team and organizational outcomes, reinforcing engagement and perceived value ([61]). This alignment ensures contributions are not only visible but meaningful, especially in a hybrid environment that requires standardized visibility practices to prevent disparities between remote and in-person employees. Establishing shared norms, structured meetings, and consistent communication expectations ensures equal visibility regardless of location ([63]; [76]; [96]). Standardization reduces confusion and uneven recognition.

5.1.2. Structured Participation and Collaboration

The second thematic finding is that leaders must actively structure participation so all employees have a consistent and fair opportunity to contribute.

Leaders must define how and when employees are expected to participate in discussions, collaboration, and decision-making. Clear expectations, combined with regular check-ins and communication structures, ensure consistent engagement across team members ([24]). Participation depends on structured collaboration processes. Leaders should implement defined workflows, scheduled interactions, and communication norms that promote consistent engagement and accountability ([30]; [35]; [38]; [39]; [49]).

Leaders must also actively manage participation during meetings and team interactions. This includes distributing input across team members, preventing dominance by a few individuals, and ensuring all voices are heard ([80]; [91]). Coaching-based approaches further encourage active involvement and reduce passive participation ([102]).

Decision-making processes must be intentionally structured to include diverse input. Leaders should create mechanisms for employee involvement, ensuring that participation is not dependent on personality, location, or communication style ([61]). This strengthens both engagement and perceived fairness.

5.1.3. Open and Accessible Information Sharing

The third thematic finding is that leaders must ensure information is consistently accessible, transparent, and inclusive across all employees.

Leaders must ensure that all employees have equal access to knowledge, decisions, and opportunities, particularly in environments where informal communication is limited. Leveraging digital tools and increasing communication frequency support accessibility and cohesion ([50]).

Transparent communication requires structured systems that consistently distribute information. Leaders should use centralized channels, defined communication practices, and appropriate formats to ensure clarity and reduce misunderstandings ([19]; [30]; [39]; [54]; [49]; [104]). Similarly, open communication should actively support employee involvement. Providing opportunities for input, feedback, and dialogue ensures employees feel informed and included in decision-making processes ([61]; [91]).

Leaders must prevent disparities caused by in-person information flow. Ensuring remote employees receive the same information as in-office employees reduces exclusion and misalignment ([48]; [58]; [63]). Effective information sharing requires managing communication channels intentionally and addressing digital inequality. Ensuring access to tools, platforms, and clear communication reduces barriers to participation and inclusion ([3]; [10]; [26]; [80]).

5.1.4. Building and Maintaining Real Human Connections

The fourth thematic finding is that leaders must intentionally create and sustain human connections to prevent isolation and strengthen a sense of belonging in virtual environments.

Leaders should design regular points of interaction that go beyond task execution. Facilitating dialogue, recognition, and team interaction helps employees feel part of a cohesive group ([36]; [84]). This can be done by leaders communicating with authenticity, responsiveness, and emotional awareness to compensate for the lack of in-person interaction. This strengthens trust and improves collaboration ([17]; [30]; [37]; [49]; [73]).

Similarly, consistent support, recognition, and individual attention reinforce relationships and engagement. Coaching-based leadership and empathy-driven interactions deepen trust and team cohesion ([61]; [91]; [96]; [102]), especially in hybrid environments. Here, leaders must intentionally create opportunities for relationship-building across locations. This includes structured onboarding, in-person interactions when possible, and informal engagement opportunities ([48]; [63]). Maintaining connection requires consistent outreach and communication routines. Reinforcing a sense of belonging, empathy, and support reduces isolation and strengthens long-term engagement ([2]; [10]; [34]; [98]; [107]).

5.1.5. Consistency of Equity

The fifth thematic finding is that leaders must ensure fairness by applying expectations, opportunities, and support consistently across all employees.

Leaders must provide consistent access to communication, development, and opportunities regardless of work arrangement. Fair and ethical practices strengthen trust and inclusion ([46]; [91]). This is especially essential for a hybrid environment that creates disparities in visibility and opportunity. Here, leaders must actively monitor and correct these gaps, ensuring remote employees are not disadvantaged in promotions, recognition, or development ([48]; [58]; [96]).

Standardizing performance management, communication, and development processes ensures consistency and reduces bias. Systems must be designed to ensure equal access and evaluation for all employees ([10]; [14]; [52]). With this, leaders must continuously assess perceptions of fairness and identify structural inequalities. Addressing these issues prevents disengagement and supports equitable employee experiences ([99]; [101]). Consistently applied fairness strengthens trust in leadership and organizational systems. Ensuring equal access to recognition, support, and opportunities for advancement creates a sustainable foundation for inclusion.

Themes were then analyzed for practical actions that leaders could take to improve inclusion. Table 4 shows the interconnection between actionable leadership strategies and five themes. The actionable strategies have been grouped into strategic categories, generated through analysis of the leadership strategies.

Additionally, Figure 2 shows the strategic category groupings, stripping away themes and focusing solely on actions leaders can take to improve inclusion strategies for a simpler, action-oriented understanding. These executable strategies were grouped into tools, interactions, and processes, with actionable verbs bolded in the figure to indicate the specific actions leaders can take to improve inclusion among virtual employees.

Researchers largely agree that inclusion is not simply about representation but about active participation, recognition, and meaningful involvement in organizational life. Across multiple studies, inclusion is consistently framed as a condition in which employees can contribute, express themselves, and feel valued within organizational systems ([13]; [74]; [77]). This shared perspective extends to the idea that inclusion operates through mechanisms such as voice, access to resources, and a sense of belonging, all of which enable employees to function effectively and engage with their work ([28]; [32]). There is also strong agreement that inclusive environments are positively associated with key outcomes, including engagement, satisfaction, and performance, reinforcing inclusion as both a social and performance-related construct ([16]; [23]; [33]). Additionally, researchers converge on leadership as a central driver of inclusion, particularly in shaping participation, recognition, and equitable access across both traditional and digital work environments ([51]; [109]).

At the same time, researchers diverge in how inclusion is operationalized and achieved, particularly in digital and hybrid contexts. Some studies emphasize structured systems, such as performance tracking, AI-supported visibility, and formal recognition processes, as necessary to ensure inclusion and fairness ([12]; [86]). In contrast, other research highlights relational and cultural dimensions, arguing that inclusion depends more on leadership behaviors, trust, and interpersonal connection than on formal systems alone ([34]; [72]). There is also disagreement regarding the role of digital technologies, with some studies suggesting that technology enhances visibility, access, and participation ([29]), while others argue that it can reinforce inequality, amplify power imbalances, and create new forms of exclusion if not carefully managed ([89]; [103]).

Several areas of research remain inconclusive, particularly regarding the long-term effectiveness of inclusion strategies in complex and evolving work environments. While there is agreement that inclusion improves outcomes, there is less clarity on which specific practices are most effective across different contexts, especially in hybrid and fully digital settings ([4]; [88]). Researchers also highlight that inclusion is influenced by multiple interacting factors at the individual, team, and organizational levels, making it difficult to isolate causal relationships or establish universal best practices ([21]; [108]). Additionally, the rapid evolution of digital work introduces ongoing uncertainty, as emerging technologies, changing work structures, and shifting employee expectations continue to reshape how inclusion is experienced and managed ([3]; [71]).

6.2.1. Work Visibility

Leaders must implement structured visibility systems by setting clear expectations for how work is tracked, shared, and communicated, and by using standardized tools such as dashboards, recurring updates, and performance check-ins ([24]; [98]). They should consistently link individual contributions to team and organizational goals and enforce equal visibility practices across remote and in-person employees to prevent recognition disparities ([61]). The supporting evidence across the reviewed literature generally reflected non-onsite work environments, including both fully virtual and hybrid employee settings.

6.2.2. Participation and Collaboration

Leaders must define and enforce participation norms by structuring meetings, workflows, and decision-making processes to require input from all team members ([35]; [38]). They should actively facilitate discussions by distributing speaking opportunities and using structured methods such as round-robin input or guided prompts to ensure consistent engagement and reduce dominance by a few individuals ([91]). The findings were supported by studies examining employee inclusion and collaboration in remote and hybrid work arrangements, rather than in traditional fully on-site environments.

6.2.3. Information Sharing

Leaders must centralize communication through designated platforms and ensure that all key information, decisions, and updates are consistently documented and shared ([19]; [54]). They should standardize communication practices, eliminate reliance on informal or in-person information flow, and ensure all employees have equal access to tools, updates, and opportunities to contribute ([30]; [50]). The evidence consistently focused on digital and non-onsite workplace environments in which communication and access to information depended heavily on virtual systems and platforms.

6.2.4. Real Human Connections

Leaders must intentionally create structured opportunities for interaction by scheduling regular one-on-ones, team check-ins, and informal moments of engagement ([84]). They should demonstrate consistent responsiveness, recognition, and empathy, while embedding relationship-building into routines such as onboarding, coaching, and ongoing team interactions to strengthen trust and belonging ([17]; [102]). The supporting literature broadly emphasized relationship-building challenges and inclusion practices among employees working partially or fully outside traditional onsite settings.

6.2.5. Equity

Leaders must standardize performance management, communication, and development processes to ensure equal access to opportunities, recognition, and advancement ([14]; [52]). They should regularly audit outcomes such as promotions, visibility, and participation, identify disparities between remote and in-person employees, and take corrective action to maintain fairness and inclusion across all employees ([48]; [58]). The reviewed evidence primarily addressed fairness, visibility, and inclusion concerns affecting employees operating in remote, hybrid, or other digitally connected non-onsite work structures.

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the study relies exclusively on secondary data from peer-reviewed literature, which limits its ability to capture real-time organizational dynamics and practitioner-specific insights. While peer-reviewed sources enhance rigor, they may not fully reflect rapidly evolving practices in virtual work environments.

Second, the study relied on a defined search strategy, inclusion criteria, and selected databases, which may have resulted in the exclusion of relevant studies not captured within those parameters. Although efforts were made to ensure comprehensive coverage, the possibility of selection bias remains.

Third, the use of an adapted critical appraisal approach, including categorizing sources into quality levels, introduces a degree of researcher judgment that may affect consistency in evaluation despite the use of structured criteria. Similarly, the thematic synthesis process, while systematic, involves interpretive coding and categorization, which may introduce subjectivity in how themes were identified and organized.

Fourth, the study focused primarily on literature published between 2022 and 2026 to ensure relevance to modern digital work environments, which may limit the inclusion of foundational studies that provide historical context. Finally, the study emphasizes broadly generalizable leadership strategies, which may not fully account for industry-specific, organizational, or cultural differences that influence inclusion practices in virtual and hybrid settings.

Finally, the study examined literature from an international perspective rather than focusing on a single country or geographic region. While this broader scope supports generalizability across diverse virtual work environments, it may reduce the precision of findings related to specific national, cultural, regulatory, or regional workplace practices.