The first-person plural form, possibly descended from the Sanskrit vayam, is very confusing.
Normally, it refers to a group of people including the speaker, in some cases, may refer to everyone but the speaker, or a specific we. It might also refer to one person who symbolises a nation- a king or queen- or an editorial board, even if they don't share that opinion. In a corporate setting, we includes everyone, from the CEO and board to the people cleaning the toilets- in order of importance- again, whether they like it, or not.
We is also a word that connotes division- for there to be a we, there must be a clearly defined them to contrast the we. Therefore, we should be used with the utmost care (or lack of it), when referring to groups that automatically include people who may feel more attached to them, or more comfortable with "I".
We is not something that comes about suddenly- unless you practice love at first sight actively, but needs time to develop.
We brings so many exceptions with it that at times, it seems easier to maintain a series of I's that come together as temporary We's, but do not seek to be included in a more permanent we. At the same time, a healthy "we" can also include "them" and others by allowing the same leeway in being connected to a group as it does the individuals that make it up.