Consider the Practice of DEI as fostering “Communityship”
What better way to foster a sense of belonging than through true, socially active, interdependent, highly related, mutually beneficial contributions to the community?
The idea of “Inclusive Leadership” has always been redundant to me.
Of course, the contrast between autocratic and other forms of leadership that are not inclusive by nature can be drawn. As it would be hard to find “UnInclusive Leadership” workshops or texts written for us to adopt, I have to refer to the closest opposite I can find.
Yet, there are situations where autocracy might help a human community effectively shape its future—à la Peter Senge’s definition of leadership: the capacity of a human community to shape its future.
Conversely, modern organizational life makes autocracy an anachronism. It might still be perceived as happening. However, the reality is that the complexity of the world and our workplaces might appear as being controlled by an authoritarian, but the way things get done reflects that even the most seemingly minor outlying node in an organizational network can majorly influence the whole.
When Kurt Lewin wrote about the three forms of leadership in 1939, he referred to them as autocratic (authoritarian), democratic (participative), and laissez-faire (delegative). For many who teach or consult on inclusive leadership, it will likely involve democratic or laissez-faire forms, as Lewin has given us.
For others, it is a combination of Alexander Grashow, Marty Linsky, Ron Heifetz’s adaptive leadership, Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey’s notion of situational leadership, a bit of servant leadership, or some combination of all of the above.
"Inclusive Leadership" is redundant
I have been a student of leadership theories. Many of the theories above reflect what I have gained an affinity for in practice, observing, and working with several extraordinary human beings in leadership roles. And, after years of reading, retreats, reflection, regurgitation, and (conscious and unconscious) rejection, I am not sure if we are obsessed with leadership in its lofty ideal for the sake of others or if we simply like the idea that we can be “one of them.”
With all the leadership theories that we hear about, one of my favorite management and strategy scholars, Henry Mintzberg says,
“Heard the word “leadership” lately, for example, in the last five minutes? We are obsessed with leadership, say organization, and we think leadership. That’s why those organization charts are so ubiquitous. They tell us who sits on top of whom, but not, for example, who talks with whom? Must we be so fixated on formal authority?”
He created a cheeky image that makes me chuckle whenever I see it:
In another article from his blog, Mintzberg posits, “We are obsessed with leadership, yet that is what has taken us into the current crisis and seems incapable of getting us out of it. What if we entertain the unspeakable thought that leadership is the problem more than the solution?”
He continues by stating that we are fixated on leadership in two respects.
1) People in “leadership” roles generally attain power by adhering to the status quo, not pushing back against it. He asks, “Why do we keep expecting established power to take us past established thinking?)
2) When we use or say the word “leadership,” it’s about an individual.
Over the past several years, writing or saying the word “leader” has been difficult for me. I have been more apt to say “senior leadership” or “senior managers.”
Dr. Mintzberg’s question sums up why I have made this shift.
“Is there nothing more to changing collective behavior than individual initiative?” he asks, then answers,
“There is!:
Communityship transcends individual attributions of leadership. He offers the alternative of “collective action by concerned people on the ground, beyond some individual at the “top”. There can be wisdom in these crowds, quite different even from that of wise leaders. This is the time to tap into it.”
The notion of Communityship in the link above refers to the 2009 HBR article “Rebuilding Companies as Communities.” In it Dr. Mintzberg suggests that what is needed is not more “leadership,” but just enough leadership to build “Communityship.”
He explains “Communityship” is not a word in the English language. But it should be–to stand between individual leadership on one side and collective citizenship on the other. In fact, I believe that we should never use the word “leadership” without also discussing communityship.”
This brings me back to inclusive leadership and the role of DEI in organizational life. Despite the virtues that many inclusive leadership programs promote, such as radical forays into more profound people engagement and ample participation, we still tend to focus on “senior leaders” or even “middle managers,” which, as Mintzberg also articulates, leaves us with a mental model that puts some on the agentic top and others on the bottom where interdependently creating the conditions for individuals and organizations thriving is lost to an anointed designated as playing this role.
Unfortunately, inclusive leadership, or any other individually oriented leadership theory, rarely to never goes beyond individual attribution. Organizations equally don’t provide incentives for those in very influential roles to receive leadership training focused on creating the conditions for people to thrive.
Most leadership theories and training programs are not oriented toward building capabilities that foster emergence. They are focused on individuals in or already targeted for a more senior position.
While there might be a hope that such capabilities are somehow an output of learning, it requires a rare level of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators not embedded in most organizational systems and structures.
Now, imagine Communityship as the state of being in, belonging to, and intentionally shaping your (organization as) community. Envisage your diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, fostering an unambiguous shift in leadership development and capability building from “leader” (individual) to “community” (everyone).
DEI practitioners, supporters, and doubters could be part of a revolution toward Communityship.
What better way to foster a sense of belonging than through true, socially active, interdependent, highly related, mutually beneficial contributions to the community?
Of course, individual agency and capacity (what we’ve historically framed as “leadership”) remain a need. As one builds these capabilities that enable communityship, the deliberate cultural expectation signals to these influential individuals that they are not developing new skills and abilities solely to influence for self-gain. Instead, they do so to build greater community vitality and extraordinary capacity to fulfill your mission, on purpose and persistently.
I conclude with Dr. Mintzberg:
“Sure we need leadership, especially to establish communityship in a new organization and to help sustain it in an established organization.
What we don’t need is this obsession with leadership—of the individual singled out from the rest, as if he or she is the end all and be all of the organization. So here’s to less leadership, or perhaps better put, just enough leadership, embedded in communityship.”
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
In this episode of the ‘Reconstructing Inclusion’ podcast, we talk about the concerns over the perceived threats to DEI, outlining that the resistance stems from a misunderstanding of what DEI truly signifies, beyond just representation and affirmative action. We explore the concept of 'Iatrogenic effects'—a medical term, indicating a treatment that causes more harm than good.