Decolonial leadership for cultural resistance and social change: Challenging the social order through the struggle of identity

Abstract

The current article focuses on subaltern social groups’ efforts that emphasize the struggle of identity with purposes of cultural resistance and social change. Through a critical approach that incorporates the reality of “coloniality” as the context within leadership emerges, the article draws from the experience of a Native American organization in a middle-size city of the United States that uses identity as a resource to challenge the dominant Eurocentric social order. The construct of “decolonial leadership” is proposed to illuminate the emancipatory process of this organization that aims to decolonize society debunking myths and narratives imposed with the dominant social order and taking control of reality from their cultural perspectives and leadership approaches. A process of decolonial leadership creates spaces from which developing collective actions and sense-making processes that eventually contribute to building symbolic power to change the dominant social order. Using a sociological and anthropological lens that challenges leader-centered perspectives and focuses on the collective dimensions of leadership, the study contributes insights to both the social change and the indigenous leadership literature.

Reframing the past to legitimate the future: Building collective agency for social change through a process of decolonizing memory

“…Additionally, dominant theories of leadership do not acknowledge the context and the power relations resulting from that context. It is a narrow vision of leadership that creates a fantasy or myth to legitimate a specific social order (Gemmill and Oakley, 1992;Jimenez-Luque, 2020). This study offers empirical research showing how the phenomenon of leadership emerges within a context and how leaders and followers struggle against the asymmetries of power that each specific context establishes.…”

“…Although research regarding Indigenous leadership is growing, the body of scholarship is still small (Bolden and Kirk, 2009;Calliou, 2008;Evans and Sinclair, 2016;Gladstone and Pepion, 2017;Jimenez-Luque, 2020;Katene, 2010;Kenny and Fraser, 2012;Nkomo, 2011;Rosile et al, 2018;Spiller et al, 2011Spiller et al, , 2020Stewart et al, 2017;Sveiby, 2011;Warner and Grint, 2006). Also, there is a lack of acknowledging context and power relations regarding Indigenous leadership studies (Evans and Sinclair, 2016;Jimenez-Luque, 2020;Rosile et al, 2018;Spiller et al, 2020;Warner and Grint, 2006;Zhang et al, 2012).…”

Leadership Development to Advance Health Equity: An Equity-Centered Leadership Framework

“…For decades, health care leadership development programs have been built on a masculine, Eurocentric framework with little evolution in leadership competencies. 7 Only recently have leadership development programs started to include frameworks that also embrace Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) perspectives. However, equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) topics (see Table 1 for definitions) are often presented in a single lecture/seminar or as a separate unit or module, if they are included at all.…”

“…Re-tooling leadership development programs to embrace a more inclusive model relevant to today’s challenges and contextual realities will help equip leaders in health care and public health to meet such slow-motion VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) challenges. 7 We must maximize the return on leadership investment dollars by exploring paradigms that equip leaders with the skills, knowledge, humility, empathy, and attitudes needed for these times. 11 Leadership principles and EDI principles can no longer be seen as separate training topics.…”

Editorial transitions part 2 – hail and hello

“…We would like to support this challenge to the ‘normativity of whiteness’ (Ladkin and Bridges Patrick, 2022: 205) that pervades leadership theory. In connection, we would like to see more papers that challenge the westernized and colonialised basis of this normalising process (see Liu, 2018; Ospina and Foldy, 2009) and add to those that have and are paving the way in the journal (e.g., Case et al, 2017; Evans and Sinclair, 2016a, 2016b; Jimenez-Luque, 2021; Stewart et al, 2017; Warner and Grint, 2006). In addition, we would also look to welcome papers that challenge the ingrained masculinity of leadership theory and research.…”