Emotional Wellbeing At Work
Emotional Wellbeing at Work: Why Inclusion Is a Relationship
Emotional Wellbeing at Work:
Emotional Wellbeing At Work
Introduction: Why inclusion affects our wellbeing
In recent years, inclusion has become a familiar word in workplace conversations. It appears in policies, strategies, statements, and training programmes. Yet for many people — particularly Black, minority, and disabled professionals — the presence of inclusive language has not translated into a felt sense of safety, fairness, or belonging.
This gap matters, because inclusion is not a neutral concept. It has a direct and measurable impact on emotional wellbeing, mental health, and our ability to remain psychologically safe at work.
When inclusion is treated as a policy rather than a relationship, it loses its power to protect people. When it is reduced to compliance, it can quietly coexist with exclusion. And when exclusion persists, the body and mind register that harm — even when it is subtle, procedural, or difficult to name.
This article explores inclusion not as a corporate initiative, but as a relational and emotional experience — one that shapes how safe, valued, and whole we feel in our working lives.
Inclusion lives in relationships, not documents
Policies can describe inclusion, but they cannot create it. Inclusion lives in everyday interactions and decisions:
who is invited into conversations
how opportunities are shared
whether decisions are transparent
how concerns are received
what happens when harm is raised
These moments form relationships — between colleagues, between leaders and teams, and between individuals and the organisation itself.
When relationships are respectful and fair, people experience a sense of stability. When relationships are unpredictable or dismissive, the nervous system shifts into vigilance. Over time, this affects emotional regulation, confidence, and mental health.
For many marginalised staff, exclusion is not overt. It is often experienced as being consistently near opportunity but never quite inside it. This type of exclusion is particularly damaging because it invites self-doubt: Was it me? Did I misunderstand? Am I expecting too much?
Without relational clarity, people turn inward — and that is where emotional harm takes root.
Why fairness is central to emotional safety
Fairness is sometimes framed as a moral or legal issue. It is also a wellbeing issue.
When people believe that outcomes are fair — even if they are disappointed — their nervous systems can settle. When fairness is absent or inconsistent, the body stays alert. Chronic unfairness keeps people in a state of watchfulness: monitoring tone, reading between lines, anticipating loss.
This ongoing stress is exhausting.
Fairness does not mean that everyone receives the same outcome. It means that processes are transparent, access is real, and decisions are not quietly predetermined. Where fairness is present, people are more likely to trust themselves and the environment. Where it is absent, trust erodes — and emotional energy is spent on survival rather than growth.
For Black, minority, and disabled professionals, fairness is often the missing link between inclusion rhetoric and lived reality. Without fairness, inclusion cannot support wellbeing.
The emotional cost of being “included” in name only
One of the most destabilising experiences at work is being told that inclusion exists while repeatedly experiencing its absence.
This creates a form of emotional dissonance. People are encouraged to believe in systems that do not protect them, and when harm occurs, it is often minimised or reframed as misunderstanding. Over time, individuals may:
silence themselves
reduce visibility
disengage emotionally
question their competence
experience anxiety or low mood
feel pressure to leave to preserve their health
This is not fragility. It is the natural response of a nervous system exposed to prolonged uncertainty and lack of repair.
Inclusion that is not relational — that does not involve listening, accountability, and care — can unintentionally deepen harm by denying people’s reality.
Belonging as a condition for mental health
Belonging is sometimes described as a “soft” outcome. In reality, it is a biological and psychological need.
Belonging tells the body: I am safe here.
When belonging is present:
people take healthy risks
creativity increases
collaboration feels possible
learning becomes safer
When belonging is absent:
stress hormones remain elevated
people mask parts of themselves
energy is diverted toward self-protection
This is why belonging cannot be separated from emotional wellbeing. A workplace that expects performance without belonging is asking people to operate in a state of internal threat.
Inclusion, when practiced relationally, creates the conditions for belonging. When practiced superficially, it can leave people feeling more isolated than before.
Why many wellbeing interventions fall short
Traditional workplace wellbeing initiatives often focus on:
resilience
confidence
coping strategies
stress management
These tools can be helpful — but they are insufficient when the source of distress is systemic unfairness or relational harm.
When people are asked to become more resilient in environments that continue to harm them, the message they receive is subtle but clear: You must adapt to what hurts you.
A wellbeing-centred approach to inclusion asks a different question:
What would need to change in the environment for people to feel safe again?
This shift is essential. Without it, wellbeing efforts risk becoming another way of managing the effects of exclusion rather than addressing its cause.
Inclusion as a practice of care
When inclusion is treated as a relationship, it becomes a practice of care. Care does not mean perfection. It means:
noticing harm
responding rather than deflecting
repairing when trust is broken
being willing to examine power
Care creates emotional safety because it signals accountability. People do not need environments without mistakes; they need environments where mistakes are acknowledged and addressed.
This is especially important for those who have experienced repeated exclusion. Repair restores dignity. Silence compounds harm.
A healing-centred way forward
Reframing inclusion as relational allows us to reconnect it to wellbeing, rather than compliance. It invites organisations — and individuals — to ask not only what policies exist, but how people feel inside those policies.
For those who have been harmed, this reframing can be the beginning of healing. It validates the emotional impact of exclusion and makes sense of why certain experiences were so destabilising.
Healing does not require blame. It requires truth, care, and space to recover.
Closing reflection
Inclusion is not a document. It is a lived, relational experience that shapes emotional health over time. Where inclusion is real, people can breathe. Where it is absent, the body remembers.
This article is part of my inner healing work exploring emotional wellbeing, fairness, and recovery after prolonged stress or exclusion in professional spaces. If this reflection resonates, you are not alone — and healing is possible.
