Author : Edward van den Boorn
Photography : Stef Nagel
Graphic Design : NC Development
Naarden-Vesting ׀ February 2026
In the series of dialogues called "PODIUM," Capita Selecta spotlights exceptional and inspiring individuals and/or organizations. These conversations explore concepts such as leadership, wisdom, responsibility, and personal and professional motivations. Vision, mission, and strategy are placed within the context of the societal, organizational, and individual levels.
We spoke to Ms. Saniye Çelik, Professor of Diversity and Inclusion in the Police Force at Leiden University. She is, among other things, a supervisory board member and crown-appointed member of the Dutch Social and Economic Council and chair of the National Integrity Committee.
Ms. Çelik's career path is unique and demonstrates social engagement, human interest, and organizational acumen. Ambition, curiosity, cheerfulness, positive thinking, and the desire to create highly practical contributions and solutions are her hallmarks.
A quite basic question to start with: What does the abbreviation D&I stand for?
Diversity & Inclusion. The English term "Equity," and thus the letter E, is often added to it: DEI. In Dutch, we sometimes also speak of "DGI": Diversity, ‘Gelijkwaardigheid’ and Inclusion. For me, the meaning of "equity," i.e., fair treatment, is tailored to what someone needs to participate - but is already fully covered by ‘Diversity and Inclusion’.
Diversity is about all the differences between people, visible and invisible: background, gender, age, but also values, beliefs, personality, education, and experience. When you can truly create space for these differences, Inclusion comes into play. Inclusion means being allowed to participate and having a say in what's happening. There's a fundamental reciprocity in this: you don't decide alone, but together. You can't claim space for yourself and simultaneously refuse to offer it to others.
What is the goal of D&I?
D&I pursues multiple objectives. Research and practical experience show that when people experience the space to be themselves, more room for difference arises. People perform better, collaboration improves, and innovation capacity increases. At the individual level, it benefits people's well-being, their health, and their functioning within the organization. For organizations, this means, among other things, alleviating staff shortages and fully utilizing their human capital - potential, precisely because differences matter and are allowed to exist. At the societal level, D&I contributes to a society that, despite all its evident differences, remains functional, resilient, and just. D&I allows you to move away from siloed thinking. It encourages a multitude of voices, better decision-making, and broader legitimacy.
How do you explain the significant focus on D&I?
Because - and I'll limit myself to the Netherlands - equity, like freedom and solidarity, is a core value in Dutch society and our democratic constitutional state. Differences and contradictions always exist, both within society and within teams and organizations. And even within families. Sometimes these differences are so great that they create friction that makes working together difficult. This requires conscious attention. For example, we see structural inequality in promotion opportunities and in people's well-being. D&I is essentially about reducing structural inequalities. From the perspective of Dutch core values, it is therefore about a fairer distribution of opportunities and increasing solidarity.
From the perspective of both the organization and the labor market, D&I is crucial for retaining talent and ensuring future sustainability. Without room for diverse perspectives, talent leaves the organization. For companies, the question also arises: who are you doing it for? Your customers? The consumer? The citizen?
D&I affects not only values but also legitimacy and effectiveness: public and/or private organizations lose support if they don't reflect society. Private organizations lose relevance if their products and services don't align with the needs or preferences of their customers and/or clients. Corporate responsibility, moral appeal, and developing sound business cases don't have to be mutually exclusive.
How can the current sensitivity regarding D&I be explained?
These sensitivities and resistance have multiple causes, both internationally and nationally. D&I involves topics and issues that are not new. Policy has been developed on it for some forty to fifty years. However, policy alone is not enough.
This is 'the great resistance': “it's not about me”.
From a historical perspective, you can certainly observe trends and nuances. Society evolves, and issues change. In recent years, D&I has primarily focused on "groups." Where people didn't feel connected to these groups, resistance could and did arise. People felt excluded and not treated equally. This is the "great resistance": "it's not about me." Simultaneously, saturation has developed: "Here we go again, and what has D&I actually achieved so far?" Many organizations have invested heavily in people and resources, but insufficiently evaluated their actual impact. Often, the benchmark was limited to numbers, while culture, behavior, and experience were overlooked. This has led to a mismatch between intentions and results, between mission and daily practice. This is precisely where much can be achieved.
The biggest mistake we can make is to think that "the politicians don't want it anymore, so we're pulling the plug." Such reasoning ignores a fundamental reality: Dutch society is changing rapidly. Demographics are shifting visibly and permanently. Currently, approximately one in three people in the Netherlands has a migration background, and that share continues to grow. Organizations that fail to anticipate this, risk falling behind; not only socially, but also, for example, in their competitive position, their services, their propositions and commercial opportunities, and their internal cohesion.
Dutch society is changing rapidly. Demographics are shifting visibly and permanently. One in three people in the Netherlands has a migration background.
Is there consensus on the measuring stick by which the objectives and outcomes of D&I strategy and policy should be measured?
That doesn't necessarily have to be the case. What is needed is clarity. You start with a clear vision that you translate into goals and measurable indicators. Goals can be quantitative, but also qualitative: perceived inclusion, psychological safety, innovative strength, and employee satisfaction. Experience shows that self-image and perceived inclusivity often differ; therefore, it's crucial to measure perception and impact in addition to the numbers. Simply adding a few people won't change anything as long as the underlying culture remains the same. A critical mass is needed before diversity truly has an impact. A solid and accurate evaluation can lead to very valuable insights.
How can ambition and results be aligned best?
Regarding ambitions, it's essential to formulate clear, agreed-upon goals and metrics upfront within the organization. Failing to do so will result in chaotic implementation, and you will be uncertain of the direction your policies and investments will take. This happens frequently. Without plans and vision, things will be rudderless and/or directionless.
However, it's especially crucial to formulate realistic (!) ambitions. I see organizations that want to change the world. The topic is already quite extensive, but keep your objectives concrete and manageable. Evaluate the results and how you need to adjust. Determining and charting a specific course is crucial: what will you focus on? What is achievable over time?
"Diversity & Inclusion" isn't an end state, but a continuous process of learning and adapting. The emphasis and priorities on various themes have shifted across generations. Consider, for example, issues related to neurodiversity, gender, and generational differences, such as expectations regarding work/life balance, working from home, and flexibility.
Ambitions are often high, and visions are formulated grandly. However, the concrete implementation often leads to stumbling blocks. Link objectives correctly to people and resources. Define the right roles and responsibilities. And realize that you'll need to make adjustments within the process. This flexibility should be available for every aspect.
To what extent is "morality" a driving force behind D&I initiatives?
To a large extent. People are values-driven. These values determine whether someone takes responsibility or disengages. Society in general rises or falls on these values. I connect people's values to the extent to which they also want to contribute to the D&I field. When you study organizations, you obviously also discuss the collective values of the organization. This has been carefully considered. However, how are these values shaped in people's daily work practices? And how do they relate to their personal values?
In the organization's hiring policy, you identify and select people who endorse the organization's values, regardless of cultural background, personality type, or personality type. These values attract people and make them apply. While there can be friction between people at the value level, it's much more often about how the organization expresses these collective values. For example, within an organization, the value of "free thinking" may exist. But what "freedom" means to one person can be quite differently defined or perceived by another. This can clash because of the different ways in which individuals express this. The concept of "morality" then comes into play. How do you act?
Values are, as it were, the DNA of our human behavior. They regulate our
interactions within organizations and society.
"Values" are valuable if they are endorsed and/or respected in working and living together. Are "values" universal?
Values are, as it were, the DNA of our human actions. They regulate our interactions within organizations and in society. However, their interpretation can vary widely. For example, you could say that everyone is in favor of freedom. Freedom and solidarity are universal values. But the way in which we collectively express them inevitably creates boundaries. Where those boundaries lie is often unclear.
Is your freedom limited by the extent to which you limit the freedom of another?
(Laughing) Certainly, but it remains a theoretical exercise until you experience what it means in daily practice. Does it mean you can say anything, even if you hurt the other person? This can clash with other values you (also) share. The implementation of values - and that's where the concept of "morality" becomes relevant - is weighed by the (intended) intentions of words and/or behavior. What is the intention, what do you want to achieve? In short, can you look at yourself in the mirror? Your personal, moral compass is guided by collectively shared values. That, for me, is the paradox: we all want to be inclusive, but we judge each other by very different moral standards.
In supporting sessions with executives, I regularly encounter situations where, despite their good intentions, they blame themselves for their behavior or communication not having achieved the desired results. This self-criticism is admirable, but in my experience, not always justified. You've gained the learning experience, but also be kind to yourself and appreciate your (good) intentions. If they were perceived differently by others, that's something you have to shape.
Noise and miscommunication can lead to irritation on a daily basis. How do you handle the situation? Do you act out of your irritation? Do you tolerate people, exclude them, or ignore them? Pause and make sure you consider other perspectives. With people you trust, it's okay to show your vulnerability. After all, you're just human, with your own limitations. I believe in the good in people. Human beings who are capable of assessing and weighing the intentions of others.
How do you, as a leader, address the differences within the organization?
Within an organization, you ultimately collaborate. You have a contract with each other, driven by a shared goal. It's not always possible to reach a mutual agreement, but it's precisely in that field of tension that leaders become aware of their willingness to create space for differences. Ultimately, we do it together: everyone contributes. So the question isn't whether we have differences, but how we organize collaboration so that differences become productive and contribute to that shared goal.
Leaders of organizations must be fully aware of the fact that they hold multiple roles and responsibilities simultaneously. They determine the organizational culture to a great extent. They not only hold a formal position but also serve as clear role models. Leaders influence culture not only through their actions but also through their inactions. Therefore, it's important to consciously reflect on your own mindset: how do you, as an individual, view Diversity & Inclusion, and how do you translate that into behavior, choices, and decision-making? Culture, structure, and leadership are closely linked and also provide guidance for an effective D&I strategy and policy.
You learn ‘leadership’ in the field, through trial and error.
How do you define leadership?
The terms that come to mind when I think of "leadership" are: sticking your neck out, standing up for something (even when things get tense), giving people the space to take on their roles and positions (servant leadership), but also daring to risk your position when it really matters. Above all, leadership is "enabling people to grow and fulfill their roles and responsibilities." That's how I, as a leader, try to define it within the course you've collectively agreed upon and pursued. Leadership is therefore always about supporting and connecting differences, not about erasing them.
“Leadership” also means daring to risk your position when it really matters.
How are sustainability and leadership related? What is sustainable leadership?
In sustainable leadership, the values you've internalized as an authentic person fall into place. Individual values and personal motivations can be the driving force behind pursuing and achieving lasting, sustainable results. In this sense, leadership isn't a "trick" learned on a course. It's learned on the job, through trial and error. As an individual, I believe this requires strong self-awareness and reflective capacity. For me, sustainability also means challenging and developing yourself, within the frameworks you've established together. That's why it's so important - also in the case of Diversity & Inclusion - to understand people and their motivations. The success and value creation of Executive Search depends on this point.
The success and value creation of Executive Search depends on
understanding people and their motivations.
Sustainable leadership and inclusive leadership begin with an interest in and respect for each other's motivations. Wanting to know and understand each other is the foundation for accepting each other's opinions and perspectives. In the sessions I lead, I always ask people what moves them so passionately. This is when you hear their personal stories, experiences, and emotions. That's impressive and valuable to experience. "Experience" is a key word here. Only when people feel safe sharing their experiences and perspectives do differences become a source of learning and better decision-making.
(Laughing) And let us not forget, by the way, that within organizations and companies, goals and results also need to be delivered on a daily basis. Wherever you collaborate, you can't ignore diversity. Differences are always present. So the question isn't whether you'll encounter them, but how you manage those differences and how you accommodate them in a way that contributes to the results you want to achieve together. This topic will always be present.
How do you define sustainable leadership from an organizational perspective?
Leadership starts with developing and communicating an attractive, achievable, purpose-driven horizon. A perspective that people can rally behind and work towards together. Sustainable leadership as well requires inspiring, guiding leaders and facilitating managers who engage, develop, and guide people within the agreed-upon space and frameworks. Leaders who have a vision - in other words, stand for something and provide momentum and direction.
For private companies on the market, a sustainable strategy depends on a solid and responsible business case. "Sustainability" is not an ideological concept, but a question of legitimacy, continuity, and trust. It also represents responsible business economics and commercial policy. Isn't the modern term "sustainability" essentially the same as the traditional concept of "stewardship"?
Isn't the modern term "sustainability" essentially the same as
the traditional concept of "stewardship"?
What is the role of an organization's Board of Directors or Executive Board with regard to D&I?
In my view, they are the driving force behind the issue, not the advisors. They are the figureheads, both within and outside the organization, and provide direction on the importance and urgency of D&I. In doing so, they create the desired and necessary support throughout the organization. This doesn't mean they have to know or implement everything themselves. For this, there's a team that further develops D&I, translates it into policy, and puts it into practice. Think of line leaders, as well as executive and supporting roles in policy and HR. Ultimately, this also involves leadership, behavior, and culture. Concepts such as integrity, (un)desirable behavior, accountability culture, social safety, well-being and space are current and recurring themes.
Boards of Directors and Management Boards are key figures in their work, as they speak out audibly, wholeheartedly, and positively on the issue, demonstrate exemplary behavior, and visibly demonstrate: "This is what we stand for."
What's the biggest challenge for a board of directors or executive board regarding D&I?
It's often that they simply don't know yet, find it too complicated, or haven't given it enough thought. Sometimes, it has been considered, but hasn't been explicitly addressed within the organization. And obviously, it can also happen that the topic clashes with personal values or beliefs.
It is important to recognize that directors are also ‘just human’.
It's crucial to recognize that directors are also "just human." Their position, however, requires something more: the willingness to accept that you don't have to have all the answers, but you are responsible for direction, clarity, and exemplary behavior. So you don't have to know everything, but you do need to explore what you find difficult, where your doubts lie, and what choices you make in response. That's precisely why Boards of Directors and Executive Boards are the bearers, drivers, and figureheads of this theme. The central question is always the same: what is our vision, and what is our purpose as leaders of this organization?
To what extent are organizations reluctant to incorporate societal themes and/or developments within their organizations through D&I?
That reluctance certainly exists, and is understandable. At the same time, if you approach D&I as valuing and leveraging differences for the benefit of better decision-making and better results, it's difficult to oppose it in principle. No one, left or right, is opposed to allowing room for diverse perspectives.
Often the core of the resistance lies in one feeling: that you
yourself are being disadvantaged.
Resistance usually arises from the way D&I is implemented. For example, when people feel they're being treated preferentially, or that equality comes at their own expense. Obligations, such as having to attend a D&I training or session, can also trigger resistance if it's unclear what the benefits are or why they're necessary. Often, the core of this resistance stems from a single feeling: that you're being disadvantaged.
What is your perspective on the role and responsibilities of the Head of Diversity & Inclusion within organizations?
It's essential for organizations to clarify what's expected of the Head of D&I and what the role's purpose is. This prevents a mismatch between intentions and outcomes. What exactly is the role? Should the Head of D&I primarily drive and accelerate, or should it embed and secure within the organization? "Boosting" and securing are two different intentions, which also require a different approach and positioning. Context is crucial: where does the organization stands today, and what are its ambitions? Is the role intended to support leaders, managers, and professionals - such as recruiters, HR, communications, and policymakers - so they can take on and fulfill their own D&I responsibilities?
What's crucial, in any case, is that the role is clearly defined. The position is often filled by intrinsically driven professionals or program managers, often in a non-hierarchical position. That's precisely why support and backing from the top is essential. The rest of the organization must also be clear about the Head of D&I's remit and how they can effectively support this role. Finally, in many organizations, a D&I program is still temporary. However, in larger organizations, you also see structural embedding, for example, in the form of a permanent D&I directorate or a fixed portfolio at the board level.
What do your personal and professional journeys look like? Where did they begin, can they be assessed separately?
My professional journey began in public service. At nineteen, I joined the police force in Brabant in the south of the Netherlands where I worked for seventeen years as a policewoman. There, I became aware of what happens when organizations attract diversity but fail to retain it. Women and people from different cultural backgrounds, in particular, often left the organization, not due to a lack of quality, but because of culture, structure, and invisible barriers. The tension between people's potential and departure became a fundamental question for me. This practical insight formed the basis for my academic work. In 2016, I received my PhD from the Faculty of Public Administration at Leiden University for my research on ‘Leading by connecting’, a study of the business case for diversity in public organizations. The central question was how differences contribute to legitimacy, quality, and performance, provided they are properly embedded in leadership, culture, and governance.
The tension between the organization's potential and people leaving became a fundamental question for me.
Parallel to my academic work, I worked for over fourteen years at the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, where I coordinated the Diversity and Inclusion Policy of three successive cabinets. In this role, I became acutely aware of how policy, political dynamics, and organizational culture influence each other, and how crucial it is that ambitions regarding diversity, integrity, and social safety are truly embedded in management and daily actions.
The interplay between policy, science and practice has been a common thread throughout my work ever since. As a lecturer in Diversity & Inclusion at Leiden University of Applied Sciences, I built a research group focused on inclusion, leadership, and social and psychological safety. I also developed tools like the Inclusion Scan, which makes inclusion in organizations measurable and a topic for discussion.
In my current role as Professor of ‘Diversity & Inclusion at the Police’ at the Leiden University, I focus on leadership, inclusive teams, integrity, and social safety - themes that increasingly determine whether organizations can credibly and sustainably fulfill their social mission. I also serve as a supervisory body, a Crown-appointed member of the National Social and Economic Council, and chair of the Central Government Integrity Committee, allowing me to address these issues at the level of governance and public responsibility.
Research insights only become meaningful when they are applied in practice.
That's what makes results concrete and relevant.
To me, personal experience and professional development cannot be seen separately. The questions I research in organizations arise from what I've seen in practice. And as I mentioned before, research insights only become meaningful when applied to the way leaders manage, make decisions, and create space for difference. That's what makes results concrete and relevant.
Why the specific theme of Diversity & Inclusion?
Partly, it was due to the momentum: the National Police and Municipal Police were merging. When I started, the number of women was limited. I was the second woman on a team of thirty-five officers, and the first with a second cultural background. I found myself in a warm environment where changes were happening rapidly. Changes in issues such as women's participation, sexual orientation, cultural differences, labor market policy, and so on. I saw people leaving the organization and wondered why this was happening, so I delved into the matter. Since I am incredibly ambitious and driven, I never stopped. I continued to develop myself through evening classes. My thesis at Tilburg University also focused on Diversity & Inclusion.
To what extent did your own, second cultural background play a role in your interest in D&I?
I find it difficult to give a clear answer to that question. Essentially, I'm primarily driven by the universal values I consider important. At the same time, I suspect that my second cultural background - perhaps more subconsciously than consciously - definitely played a role in my interest in this topic at the time. This also applied to my position as a woman in a strongly masculine organization, where I often found myself in the minority.
Ultimately, my greatest motivations were my ambition and drive. These were precisely what triggered me to delve deeper into D&I. I wanted to learn faster, look further, and better understand how organizations and systems work. During that period, I was even sometimes called a "job application champion." I was searching for answers to questions like: why do people leave, and what drives others toil and struggle to climb the societal ladder?
Research and teaching have remained a constant presence in my life since then, precisely because I received so many questions from the field. Professionals and managers increasingly contacted me. I then consciously shaped and reflected these questions in my work.
My most important lesson is: get moving and keep moving.
What have been the defining moments in your life and career?
My career has been shaped by repeatedly taking steps outside my comfort zone. That's precisely where growth occurs. That journey began in the police force and, through research and policy, ultimately led me to a professorship. In every phase, I've experienced that development requires letting go of certainties and embracing new challenges. I strongly believe in the next step: keep learning, keep moving, and keep adjusting. My most important lesson is: get moving and keep moving.
Where are you headed?
I'm moving towards a phase in which I increasingly want to create space for learning, reflection, and genuine dialogue and connection. Every day, I see leaders who are intrinsically committed to inclusion, social safety, and good leadership, and who are willing to challenge their own assumptions. This fills me with hope and positivity. It's precisely this openness to continuous learning and growing that I want to nurture and support. I constantly reflect on myself: reflections that deepen, and conversations that challenge where necessary. And if people and boards so desire, I'm happy to contribute. Because it's precisely in that interaction that I see great potential for the future.
What are your personal, intrinsic motivations?
Curiosity and the need to keep learning. I'm driven by the question of how people in organizations can thrive when there's room for difference, doubt, and making mistakes. I believe that true development only occurs when people feel safe enough to reveal themselves and examine their assumptions. That openness, both in myself and in others, is what motivates me to continue doing this work.
Wisdom is also learning from the wisdom of others.
What does the concept of "wisdom" mean to you?
Learning from good and bad experiences and results, both collectively and personally. Wisdom also means learning from the wisdom of others. In the case of practical dilemmas, for example, which I encounter within the groups and individuals I coach, I also wish people a great deal of wisdom. I often apply the concept of wisdom myself. I want people to make well-considered choices that are good and feel right for themselves and others, but above all, to incorporate the wisdom of others. For the necessary reflection and time, and to make the right, well-considered decisions, dialogue with others is desirable and essential. The perspectives and reflections of others are of great value. This is your source of learning and growth in your wisdom. In fact, you can define D&I as a path to collective wisdom. D&I is "achieving wisdom together and through dialogue." D&I is the path to better decision-making. (Smiling.)
D&I is "achieving wisdom together and through dialogue."
D&I is the path to better decision-making.
What question was never asked, but you always wanted to answer?
"What does inclusion specifically require of me, today, in my role?" Because true inclusion isn't about policy or fancy words, but about everyday choices. It's about who you involve, who you hear, what you allow, and what you correct. Ultimately, inclusion is about behavior: every single day.
What urgent matter have you always wanted to answer?
How do we create organizations where people don't have to choose between belonging and being themselves? Because when people have to adapt to be "accepted," you lose not only humanity but also quality. Inclusion isn't a bonus; it determines whether people dare to contribute and grow.
What question did I forget to ask you today?
There are several. For example: what are we willing to let go of in order to continue growing together?
That's about egos, status, old assumptions. Growth requires us to make space. And making space almost always means letting something go.
And also the question: what's the crux of the matter when it comes to Diversity & Inclusion within organizations and in society, broadly speaking, in the current zeitgeist? That crux isn't diversity itself; differences are always there. The crux lies in the question: how do we organize difference without it becoming polarizing or exclusionary?
We live in a time when language, norms, and boundaries are increasingly fragile and sensitive. You see and experience that people often endorse the principle of equality, until it feels personal: "But what does this mean for me?" That's where tension arises. Inclusion then requires leadership: not looking away, not hardening, but carrying the conversation. Holding space for difference without trivializing it. And at the same time: ensuring frameworks, social safety, and clear rules of conduct.
What quote would you like to end with?
"D&I isn't a standalone project; it's about culture, behavior, and social safety. And leaders set the standard."
About Saniye Çelik
Prof. Dr. Saniye Çelik began her career as a police officer in Brabant. She worked for the police for over seventeen years, both in uniform and in advisory roles. She studied Management, Economics, and Law in Breda (2003) and Human Resources at Tilburg University (2007). As a researcher, she transferred to the University of Groningen and developed an intervention methodology and training courses to promote the collaboration and effectiveness of diverse teams. In 2009, she joined the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, coordinating government policy on diversity for the entire public sector.
Saniye Çelik received her PhD from Leiden University in 2016 for her work on the business case of Diversity. A year later, she was appointed professor of Diversity and Inclusion at Leiden University of Applied Sciences. She provides leadership programs for supervisors and administrators within the Police and the Public Prosecution Service. Saniye Çelik is a lecturer at Leiden University and the Netherlands School of Public Administration (NSOB) and holds supervisory positions.
In September 2023, Saniye Çelik was appointed Professor by Special Appointment of Diversity and Inclusion at Leiden University. Her research themes are: leadership and culture, safe and inclusive teams, staff recruitment and retention, and connecting public organizations with society. On the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, Ms. Çelik was appointed Royal Member of the national Social and Economic Council (SER), a position she has held since April 1, 2024. Since September 2025, she has chaired the independent Central Government Integrity Committee. Ms. Çelik has been a Member of the Supervisory Board of HVO Querido since 2022.
Since September 2024, Ms. Çelik has been an Associate Partner in Leadership Advisory at Capita Selecta, advising executive boards and boards of directors on the strategy, policy, and implementation of Diversity & Inclusion within public organizations and private companies.
