In the third entry of the liberating leadership blog series, we move to an intrapersonal examination of liberatory leadership. The first two blogs examined interpersonal and institutional dimensions, Equity Labs facilitator Taz Romine-Mann examines the complexity of leading the self rather than leading the followers.

*This blog contains brief accounts or descriptions of some violent discipline methods. We invite readers to attend to their safety when deciding to read further.

My professional journey and experience with leadership, while in many ways not unique in the vastness of human experience, differs from many operating in more academic circles. I have managed auto parts stores, worked for moving companies, been a commercial truck driver, managed commercial vehicles and real estate, and worked in the admission office of a university. I now serve as the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Administrator for Denver Housing Authority. In each of these positions, regardless of positional authority or formal power, I have been perceived as a leader, and not because I have sought it out or positioned myself where opportunities for influence would appear. I have spent a great deal of time reading and thinking about why this is, and I would like to share some of those ideas with you today.

Throughout the discourse, training, and education around leadership, it is consistently framed as a set of skills and characteristics we put to use in the world around us. Skills and characteristics that are externally applied. We are taught to lead others, that leaders have followers. This is a view that can benefit from complication. What is leadership without followers?

More accurately, what if we are our own followers? What if we lead ourselves?

Leading Without Followers

While the abusive power dynamics and coercive societal expectations of white supremacist culture cannot be fully expunged, self-leadership, practiced through a liberatory lens (as described in Part One of this series) and grounded in an Equity Ethos, can remove the external gaze from our internal decision-making. In this new internal environment, we can more consistently stay in integrity with our values, irrespective of the presence of an external audience. We also find the opportunity to reconcile, or at least mitigate, some of the central conflicts between traditional leadership frameworks and liberatory leadership.

Self-Leaders Live a Shared Vision

Consider the relationship between values and vision. Traditional leadership often views values as a vehicle for achieving vision, as (hopefully) a tool for decision-making. As the history of capitalism demonstrates, however, these values rarely extend beyond the performative and are frequently compromised, undermined, or abandoned in the face of adversity or emergent opportunities for short-term gain. A liberatory leader practicing self-leadership understands vision as an extension of their values in practice, not simply as a mechanism for navigating towards the vision.

As was discussed in Part Two of this series, traditional leadership cannot center oppressed peoples, nor will it create space for their self-determination, thus the vision it provides is inevitably tainted. A liberatory self-leader’s vision emerges from their values, which in turn are influenced, shaped, and informed by lived experience, introspective and interrogative practice, and through fellowship and communion with diverse peoples, as described in part one.

Traditional leadership visions almost always fall within timelines where they could be considered long-term strategies. The liberatory self-leader attends to a vision of the far-future, one much further removed than would be contemplated by traditional leaders; a future perhaps many generations removed from our present.

Within the self-leadership model, vision is not just the destination. It is also the journey, which can be multi-generational, connecting and intertwining with uncountable others, and of which the liberatory self-leader is one of many stewards.

Self-Leaders Find Motivation in Their Values and Shared Vision

Traditional leaders use inspiration to encourage ourselves and others to take actions that we might find unpleasant, or where risk of failure is high, or significant effort is required. The self-leader doesn’t seek or expect herself to inspire anyone, not even herself. Rather, her vision and values compel action that is taken freely, willingly, intentionally, and joyfully.

Some might argue that we already have a word for this: self-discipline. However, the connotations and historical implementation of discipline, whether on oneself or others, is too steeped in white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism for repurposing. Discipline is meted out on those who fail to meet a standard. We give up a momentary pleasure in favor of long-term reward.

Self-discipline conjures images of self-flagellation, deprivation, sacrifice, and suffering.

The teacher’s paddle

The slave owner’s whip

The father’s belt

The fashion magazine cover

The overdraft charge

The bathroom scale

These are the tools of discipline, whether internally or externally applied, encouraging conformity disguised as improvement through violence or threat of violence.

The self-leader has no need for or interest in engaging with self-discipline. She understands that white supremacy and patriarchy offer nothing of value and the notion of self-discipline is a scam. There is no sacrifice inherent to acting in accordance with her values and in service of the vision she follows.

Inspiration is not necessary to motivate action.

It flows from her like water from a spring.

Self-Leaders Strive for Consistency and Growth

Traditional leadership expects leaders to set the standard for appropriate behavior and to hold followers accountable to new standards. When those leaders are selected based on the characteristics valued by white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism, and where appropriate behaviors are defined by those same values, it can be no surprise that many of our organizations (personal or professional) operate out of survival mindsets, with hyper-individualistic, toxically competitive, low-trust cultures.

The liberatory self-leader doesn’t seek to control their own behavior. They understand that control is a myth. Behavior is emergent and organic, a product of numerous factors, including lived experience, personal characteristics, bias, personal values, societal expectations, etc. Rather they seek intentionality and consistency through looking “at” the factors influencing their own behavior, rather than “through” them. This is an application of Robert Kegan’s “Subject/Object Theory” where subjects are things (personality traits, worldviews, behaviors, emotions, etc.) which are taken for granted. They are invisible to us as we perceive them as part of ourselves. In essence they have us. In contrast, objects are things we see as separate from ourselves. They can be independently weighed, considered, and evaluated; they are things that we have.

Another way of thinking about this is to consider looking through a window. The glass is transparent, and we see through it (subject), but what we see will be influenced by any flaws or imperfections it has. We can also look at the window itself (object) and reflect on how its flaws and imperfections distort the light that comes through.

For years I have personally struggled and continue to struggle with asking for help. For much of my life I took great satisfaction in my “self-reliance”. Years ago, though, I started to question this trait I was so proud of. Through working with a therapist and spending hours upon hours in honest reflection, I came to a realization. I didn’t really enjoy this type of self-reliance. In truth, I was afraid that by asking for help I would be seen as a burden and unworthy of love. To shield myself from this fear and the meaning it held, I had concocted a rationalization that made “not asking for help” something I could be proud of.

Once I made this connection, my whole relationship to asking for help shifted. I didn’t immediately become the kind of person who eagerly asks for help when they need it, but now, when I feel overwhelmed or out of my depth, and that old self-talk starts up about how I need to do this on my own, I am prepared to question, interrogate, and evaluate that narrative, rather than taking it for granted, and I ask for help much more often now. And when I don’t, it’s much more likely to be the result of purposeful, intentional decision-making.

Developing capacity to move more things from subject to object enables a higher degree of criticality and intentionality in behavior leading to more consistent adherence to the self-leader’s personal values and vision. And when, inevitably, misaligned behaviors manifest, the self-leader embraces their own imperfection, viewing these moments as opportunities for continued growth, learning, and development.

Becoming a Self-Leader

Developing self-leadership requires an inward extension of the initial questions readers were tasked with considering in Part One. I’ve copied the first of those here with my additional layers of inquiry in the sub-bullet points.

How do I define leadership, both in myself and those around me? Are all leaders the same? To what do I attribute the qualities of different leaders?

Why do I define leadership in this way?

Why do I perceive leadership qualities either the same way or differently?

What things can I see as objects that inform my perspectives?

What does this tell me about things I have and things that have me?

Building your Leadership Ethos  

Section 3: Frameworks for making leadership-based decisions 

In the third segment of developing your leadership ethos we invite you to reflect on the decision-making process that informs your decisions and how to create a process that support a liberated self-leader. Critically considering your ability to make decisions before you are required to can allow for reflection and analysis to be intentional around your decision-making.

With this in mind, reflect on the following questions on how you approach decision-making and utilizing a self-leadership approach for liberation.

Who or what are the people and projects that take priority in my decision-making process and why?   
How are identities (historically oppressed and dominant) influential in the way I make decisions?  
How can I ensure that my decision-making does not exacerbate harm to those with decreased social power?

Other Blogs in the Series

Blog