The Complicit Omission: Leadership Development's Radical Silence on Equity

Abstract

The Complicit Omission:Leadership Development's Radical Silence on Equity John P. Dugan (bio) and Henderson Leonette (bio) Here is the reality that students experience beyond the well-manicured lawns of higher education: Economic opportunity is dwindling for far too many young people and their families. More than 100 million people live in distressed and at-risk communities across the United States with 52% identifying as Black, Latinx, or Indigenous (Benzow et al., 2020; Parolin et al., 2020). This is compounded by increasing housing insecurity and food insecurity among undergraduates, decreasing family income, and rising anxiety and major depressive disorders, which disproportionately impact minoritized communities (Chirikov et al., 2020; Parolin et al., 2020; Soria et al., 2020). Leadership development demonstrates potential as a vehicle for addressing intersecting educational, economic, and racial inequities. When done well, leadership development is among the only forms of learning to contribute to retention beyond the first year of college (Wolniak et al., 2012). Gains in leadership capacity are also associated with increased resilience, perspective taking, and civic engagement (Dugan, 2017); however, to serve this purpose leadership development must position equity at its core. In the article, we address how leadership scholarship perpetuates whiteness and the problems this causes for educators and students advancing social justice. The organizations we oversee deliver place-based, community-driven programs serving youth and families from the lowest quartile of the socioeconomic ladder. Our constituents are primarily Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), many living in rural communities. The ecosystems they navigate are among the most abundant with talent, yet the most scarce of opportunities. With more than 40 years of collective experience, we believe in the power of education as a gateway to opportunity and mobility; however, achieving this requires addressing the uncomfortable realities of economic inequality and white supremacy that manifest every day in leadership practice, yet are decidedly absent from scholarly consideration. THE COMPLICIT OMISSION The promise of leadership education has stagnated. Only 32% of students participate in leadership development programs by the age of 25, with less than half of those programs demonstrating any meaningful impact (Dugan, 2018). This degree of reach and influence should be acceptable to no one. Multiple factors contribute to this, but none [End Page 379] is more glaring than the complicit omission of equity, identity, and power in leadership theory and research. Even a cursory scan of leadership literature unveils a level of attention to equity, identity, and power that is paper-thin at best and endorses white supremacy at worst. How, for example, does the social change model of leadership emphasize social justice as a core principle, yet leave an explicit representation of that value out of its model? How does authentic leadership omit explanations of how identity and power dictate who is permitted to be "authentic"? Even when the scrutiny of research reveals fundamental flaws, theories persevere. Why are we still talking about great man and derivative trait-based theories that are grounded in and perpetuate eugenics and class-based elitism? We assure you that their continued use is not because they translate beautifully to practice. Our constituents identify their flawed nature and the emotional toll of engaging with scholarship that dehumanizes populations and/ or renders them invisible. The same concerns can be leveled against leadership research. Why are we still conducting studies with personality-based heuristics (e.g., CliftonStrengths Assessment, Myers–Briggs Type Indicator) that fail to address identity, equity, or power as if students experience the world in a social vacuum? For those using CliftonStrengths, we know that the measurement is fundamentally flawed with internal reliability levels that do not pass muster, particularly for BIPOC students (Dugan, 2017). Let's dig into an example of how toxic an effect this research has on practice. What happens when a scale measuring intellection (i.e., talent reflecting intellectual activity and introspection) fails to reliably measure the concept with BIPOC students but effectively measures it among white students? What messages are internalized when this weakness is deemed acceptable because of its functionality with white students? How are we complicit in perpetuating harm when we (a) fail to call out the problematic research, (b) continue to socially validate its worth, and...