White Supremacy Culture in Organisations: Leadership, Systems and Inclusion
Sometime in the late 1990s, a list was written out of frustration—an attempt to name what kept showing up across organisations, communities, and homes. It named patterns that felt familiar but often went unspoken: perfectionism, urgency, defensiveness and denial, quantity over quality, worship of the written word, one right way, paternalism, either/or thinking, power hoarding, fear of open conflict, individualism, progress defined as more, the right to profit, objectivity, and the right to comfort (Okun, 2025).
Over time, what became clearer was not just that these characteristics existed, but that they were expected. Taught. Rewarded. Reinforced. In many professional and organisational settings, these are framed as effectiveness, professionalism, or high standards. This is not abstract. These patterns shape how decisions are made, who is heard, and how performance is defined.
What Is White Supremacy Culture?
White supremacy culture is not limited to overt or extreme expressions of racism. It is embedded in everyday norms, expectations, and ways of working that position certain behaviours, values, and forms of knowledge as neutral or universally correct (Okun, 2025). These norms often go unnamed because they are treated as “just the way things are done.” In practice, they shape what is considered credible, professional, and effective. Drawing on practitioner work by Okun (2025), these characteristics provide a lens for understanding how cultural norms operate in practice, particularly in organisational contexts.
The Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture
White supremacy culture can be understood through a set of recurring characteristics that appear in everyday organisational life. These include perfectionism, where mistakes are seen as failure, and a sense of urgency, where speed is prioritised over reflection. Defensiveness can show up as resistance to feedback, while a focus on quantity over quality prioritises output over depth and relationships.
There is often a worship of the written word, where written communication is valued above other forms of knowledge and expression. The belief in one right way creates rigid expectations about how work should be done, while paternalism concentrates decision-making among a small group. Either/or thinking reduces complexity into binary choices, and power hoarding limits access to information and influence.
Fear of conflict can lead to avoidance of difficult conversations, while individualism frames success as solely the result of personal effort. Progress is often defined as more, bigger and faster, while the right to profit prioritises financial outcomes over people. Objectivity can be used to dismiss lived experience, and the right to comfort can limit the ability to engage with discomfort, particularly in conversations about difference (Okun, 2025).
White Supremacy in Workplaces: How It Shows Up and How It Can Be Interrupted
Building on Okun’s (2001/2025) work, these patterns can be observed in everyday workplace practices and, importantly, can be interrupted through intentional choices.
Perfectionism may show up as a fear of mistakes, over-editing work with little added value, and treating mistakes as personal failure. Criticism can outweigh appreciation, and experimentation may be avoided. Interrupting this pattern could involve normalising learning and error, separating the person from the mistake, increasing appreciation of effort, focusing on clarity over polish, and modelling fallibility and repair.
A sense of urgency may appear through rushed decisions, limited inclusion, short-term thinking, unrealistic timelines, and burnout. This could be interrupted by creating realistic plans, naming urgency explicitly, learning from past timing challenges, setting boundaries, and planning inclusion as part of the timeline.
Defensiveness may be experienced as feedback being taken personally, resistance to challenge, avoidance of accountability, and emotional shutdown. This could be worked with by linking defensiveness to fear, developing feedback literacy, naming defensiveness, focusing on learning rather than blame, and building capacity to hear challenge.
Quantity over quality may prioritise outputs over relationships, leading to decisions that are later undermined. Interrupting this pattern could involve valuing process, measuring engagement, pausing agendas, and balancing outputs with outcomes.
Worship of the written word may show up in privileging written communication and dismissing other forms of knowledge. This could be interrupted by valuing verbal, visual, and relational knowledge, accepting multiple formats, and reducing perfection demands in documentation.
Paternalism may appear through decisions being made for others, limited transparency, and input without influence. This could be addressed by clarifying decision-making, sharing frameworks, and involving those affected appropriately.
Either/or thinking may simplify complex issues into right or wrong decisions. This could be interrupted by generating multiple options, slowing down decisions, encouraging nuance, and distinguishing between technical and complex problems.
Power hoarding may involve control of information and resistance to sharing authority. This could be worked with by naming power sharing as a value, defining leadership as developing others, and increasing transparency.
Fear of open conflict may result in avoidance, tone policing, and unresolved tension. This could be addressed by normalising conflict, separating tone from content, and building skills for constructive dialogue.
Individualism may lead to siloed working and competition. This could be interrupted by valuing teamwork, setting shared goals, and rewarding collective outcomes.
Progress defined as more may prioritise expansion over sustainability. This could be reframed by focusing on quality, long-term thinking, and relational impact.
Objectivity may dismiss emotion and lived experience. This could be addressed by acknowledging positionality, sitting with discomfort, and recognising that perspectives are shaped by experience.
The right to comfort may show up as avoidance of discomfort and resistance to challenge. This could be interrupted by distinguishing discomfort from harm, welcoming discomfort as part of learning, and building regulation skills.
Interlocking Systems of Oppression
The research frames ableism, classism, patriarchy, capitalism, and white supremacy as interlocking systems rather than isolated attitudes or individual prejudices (hooks, 2000). Across the literature, each system works by naming a dominant norm, marking difference as deficit, embedding that norm in institutions, and legitimising unequal access to power and resources (Bell, 2011; Crenshaw, 1989; Sue, 2010).
Ableism is commonly described as the privileging of non-disabled bodies and minds as the standard, while disability is treated as deficit or deviance (Campbell, 2009). Its core practices include inaccessible design, exclusionary policies, medical and institutional gatekeeping, and cultural norms that devalue disabled people’s participation and expertise (Campbell, 2009; Goodley, 2014). Research also distinguishes interpersonal, institutional, and structural ableism, highlighting how it operates across everyday interactions and systems (Sue, 2010).
Classism is the system that assigns worth, competence, and legitimacy based on social class, income, education, wealth, or status (Lott, 2002). Its core practices include resource hoarding, meritocratic myths that obscure structural inequality, institutional barriers in schooling and healthcare, and cultural norms that reward middle- and upper-class styles of communication and behaviour (Lott, 2002). In this literature, classism is understood not only as prejudice but as a system of domination embedded in policy and culture.
Patriarchy is a political-social system that positions men, masculinity, and male authority as dominant and normative (hooks, 2000; Walby, 1990). Its core practices include control over decision-making, gendered division of labour, normalization of male entitlement, and the marginalization of feminist, queer, and nonconforming ways of knowing and living (hooks, 2000; Walby, 1990).
The concept of “white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” (hooks, 2000) highlights how patriarchy operates in connection with other systems rather than in isolation.
Capitalism is organised around profit, private ownership, and the exploitation of labour (Marx, 1867/1976). Its core practices include commodification, wage labour dependence, productivity demands, profit maximisation, and the treatment of people and services as market goods (Piketty, 2014). Within this literature, capitalism is also linked to inequality, as it rewards accumulation and often depends on forms of insecurity or exclusion to sustain wealth.
White supremacy is described as a system that centres whiteness as the norm for value, knowledge, leadership, and belonging (Bell, 2011). Its core practices include racial hierarchy, Eurocentrism, cultural erasure, institutional control, and the legitimising of white perspectives as universal while racialising others as inferior or less credible. In hooks’ (2000) framing, white supremacy is not only overt prejudice; it is embedded in the ordinary functioning of society, including institutions and cultural expectations. White supremacy does not operate in isolation. It is interconnected with other systems of oppression, including ableism, classism, patriarchy, and capitalism. These systems reinforce one another and shape the conditions in which organisations operate (Crenshaw, 1989; hooks, 2000; Sue, 2010).
Colectively these systems shape what is seen as legitimate, who is included, and how resources and opportunities are distributed.
How These Systems Show Up in Everyday Practice
Organisations rarely name these systems directly. Instead, they appear through everyday expectations about behaviour, performance, and professionalism.
Perfectionism can reflect ableist and capitalist standards that define competence narrowly. Urgency often aligns with capitalist pressures for productivity, reducing space for reflection and participation. Defensiveness can protect dominant norms, making it more difficult to challenge inequity. The prioritisation of written communication can reflect classed and cultural assumptions about what counts as legitimate knowledge.
Similarly, the belief in one right way can suppress alternative approaches, while paternalism and power hoarding concentrate decision-making and influence. Individualism can obscure the role of systems and structures in shaping outcomes, and the avoidance of conflict can prevent honest engagement with difference.
These patterns are not isolated behaviours. They are expressions of deeper systems shaping how organisations function.
These systems are not abstract. They show up through the characteristics already described.
How These Characteristics Link to White Supremacy
Each of these characteristics reflects underlying assumptions about what is considered correct, credible, and valuable. These assumptions have not emerged neutrally. They are historically shaped by white supremacy and continue to influence organisational norms. For example, the belief in one right way reflects the universalising of dominant approaches. The prioritisation of written communication can privilege Western forms of knowledge. Objectivity can position dominant perspectives as neutral, while dismissing lived experience. The right to comfort can protect dominant groups from challenge or accountability. Understanding these links is not about attributing intent to individuals. It is about recognising how these norms have been formed and how they continue to operate.
Inclusion Needs as a Counterbalance
A needs-based perspective offers a way to move from awareness to practice. Liz Wilson’s work on the 8 Inclusion Needs of All People highlights that inclusion is experienced through conditions, not intentions (Wilson, 2023a, 2023b). These needs include access, space, opportunity, allowance, representation, language, respect, and support. They reflect what people require to participate fully and effectively. When these needs are not met, the characteristics of white supremacy culture are more likely to dominate. When they are considered, there is greater potential to create environments where people can contribute, perform, and thrive. This provides a practical counterbalance to the characteristics of white supremacy culture by focusing on what enables participation rather than only identifying what restricts it.
Leadership Implications
Leadership does not sit outside these dynamics. It operates within them. In Inclusive Leadership: Navigating Organisational Complexity, Walsh (2024) describes leadership as relational and shaped by individual, organisational, and systemic influences. This positions leadership as an active response to these patterns, rather than a neutral role within them. This means leaders are constantly navigating these patterns, whether consciously or not. In practice, this may involve creating space for reflection in the face of urgency, enabling shared accountability rather than reinforcing individualism, supporting honest dialogue rather than avoiding conflict, and opening up multiple ways for people to contribute rather than reinforcing a single standard. This is not about removing standards or structure. It is about examining how they are defined and ensuring they support both effectiveness and inclusion.
Important Caution: Do Not Weaponise This
Okun (2025) explicitly cautions against using these characteristics as a tool for accusation, as this can reinforce the same dynamics it seeks to challenge. Instead, it can be used to understand patterns, reflect on practice, and support more conscious choices (Mitchell, 2022). When used as a weapon this way, it can reinforce the very dynamics it is intended to challenge (Okun, 2025; Mitchell, 2022). Instead, it is intended as a way to understand patterns, reflect on practice, and support more conscious choices.
Antidotes, Internal Work, and Dismantling Oppression in Practice
Building on the work of Okun (2001/2025) and the broader dRworks dismantling racism approach, the characteristics of white supremacy culture are not only patterns to identify; they are patterns to interrupt. Each characteristic is accompanied by practical antidotes that shift how individuals, groups, and organisations operate.
At a practical level, these antidotes are often deceptively simple. Perfectionism can be interrupted by developing a culture of appreciation, separating the person from the mistake, and treating mistakes as opportunities for learning rather than personal failure. A sense of urgency can be worked with by creating realistic timelines, naming urgency explicitly, and ensuring that inclusion is planned for rather than sacrificed. Defensiveness can be addressed by recognising its link to fear, building feedback literacy, and strengthening the capacity to stay in challenge without withdrawal.
Similarly, a focus on quantity over quality can be shifted by valuing process, relationships, and engagement alongside measurable outputs. Worship of the written word can be interrupted by recognising multiple forms of knowledge and communication. The belief in one right way can be softened by actively working with multiple approaches and learning from difference. Patterns such as paternalism, power hoarding, and fear of conflict can be addressed through transparency, shared decision-making, and developing the capacity to engage in open, constructive conflict (Okun, 2001/2025).
However, the work of dismantling oppression is not only behavioural or organisational. It is also internal. Because these systems are embedded in culture, they are also internalised. This means that dismantling oppression involves working with the internalised oppressor and the internalised oppressed. It involves recognising the parts of ourselves that:
have learned to uphold dominant norms
have benefited, directly or indirectly, from systems of oppression
have been constrained, silenced, or shaped by those same systems
This is not a contradiction; it is the reality of living within these systems.
Working at this level involves developing the capacity to come into relationship with these parts of ourselves without collapsing into shame or denial. It involves noticing defensiveness, urgency, perfectionism, or the need for comfort as internal responses, not just external behaviours. It also involves recognising where we may be more comfortable aligning with dominant norms because they offer safety, legitimacy, or reward.
This requires a different kind of leadership and practice one that is relational, reflexive, and able to hold complexity. From the perspective of the Include-Performance Framework™, this work operates across multiple levels:
At an individual level, it involves awareness of internal patterns, beliefs, and reactions shaped by these systems
At a relational level, it involves how these patterns show up in communication, trust, conflict, and accountability
At a systemic level, it involves how these patterns are embedded in structures, processes, and norms
At a performance level, it involves how these dynamics affect decision-making, sustainability, and outcomes
This reinforces a key point: dismantling oppression is not separate from performance. It is part of how effective performance is created. Okun’s work also highlights an important caution. These frameworks are not designed to be weaponised. When used to shame, blame, or position individuals as the problem, they can reproduce the very dynamics they are intended to challenge. Instead, they are intended as analytical tools ways of understanding the cultural “water” we are all operating within, so that we can make more conscious, collective choices (Okun, 2001/2025; dRworks).
Ultimately, this work asks for a deeper relationship with self and with others. It involves:
recognising our conditioning without collapsing into it
staying in relationship when discomfort arises
being able to hold both accountability and compassion
and working collectively to create different norms, not just critique existing ones
This is not quick work. It is ongoing, relational, and often uncomfortable. But it is also where meaningful change becomes possible.
What This Means in Practice
This work is not about perfection. It is about awareness, choice, and ongoing practice. It involves recognising that these patterns exist, that they shape everyday organisational life, and that they influence both inclusion and performance. Once they are visible, they can be worked with.
Conclusion
White supremacy culture is embedded in organisational life, often invisibly shaping what is considered effective, professional, and valuable. Understanding these patterns allows them to become visible. When they are visible, they can be engaged with differently. Once visible, they can be engaged with as data rather than assumed as neutral standards, creating the possibility for more inclusive and effective leadership practice. This creates the possibility for leadership and organisations to make choices that support both inclusion and performance, rather than reinforcing the same patterns by default.
References
Bell, D. A. (2011). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the unfulfilled hopes for racial reform (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism. Palgrave.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167.
Goodley, D. (2014). Disability studies. SAGE.
hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody. South End Press.
Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive distancing from the poor. American Psychologist, 57(2), 100–110.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital (Original work 1867). Penguin.
Mitchell, M. (2022). Building resilient organizations. Convergence.
Okun, T. (2025). White supremacy culture. https://www.whitesupremacyculture.info/
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st century. Harvard University Press.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life. Wiley.
Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy. Blackwell.
Walsh, S. (2024). Inclusive leadership: Navigating organisational complexity. ELIS Institute.
Wilson, L. A. (2023a). Inclusion needs framework. IJSSRR.
Wilson, L. A. (2023b). Inclusion needs evidence. IJSS Studies.