Unleading the Way: Rethinking Leadership, Power, and Representation in a Changing World

The past few weeks in my doctorate classes dealt with leadership and how diverse leaders, particularly racially marginalized leaders, can be uplifted for representation and inclusive decision-making for organizations. The notions of unleading, the questioning of our traditional understandings of leadership, was posed as a way of dismantling outdated conceptions of what a leader is and how it is intimately tied to meritocracy, a myth of equality, productivity, and individuality. Rather than simply diversifying existing leadership structures, we need to fundamentally rethink leadership itself—moving away from hierarchical, individualistic models toward shared, relational, and dynamic forms of leadership that truly reflect an equitable society. This is where the decentering of power is required in society to make space for other forms of truths and other forms of leadership that is relational and not individualistic. What if a leader was not a person but a dynamic and reciprocal connection between members of the team?

When we factor in perceptions of leaders, they are often judged by identity rather than their skillsets. These judgements are unfairly altered for leaders of colour with different sets of expectations and criteria. Earlier tonight, the class focused on the analogy of driving a bus and how the bus driver leads the entire group. Statistically, these drivers are predominantly white males and the presenter suggested that these bus drivers can help to train the underrepresented future drivers of colour instead of abandoning the wheel in response to equity, diversity, and inclusion. But then some of us in the discussion began to wonder why we must continue the status quo of the group's mode of transportation. Instead of continuing the bus and keeping it running with the driver in charge, why not build an airplane with two pilots? Or even a UFO with everyone being in charge at different specialties?

This makes me realize that still today, a lot of leadership discussions and theories are based in continuing the existing structures of power and hierarchy. Perhaps I am being a tad bit radical, but why must we continue the imbalances in society by replacing the leaders with different diversities? I felt uncomfortable as some of the ideas in the discussion outright antagonized white leaders as if it was their fault for being white and being a leader. Yes, I understand that equity means shifting resources and priorities to serve the underrepresented and underserved communities. But as we know from today's complex sociopolitical climate, it builds more division and everybody feels they have been wronged by the system in one way or another. The way forward is not to take away and give elsewhere, in my opinion. The way forward is to redesign the system to ensure that inequities are no longer an issue for anyone, regardless of their identity and belonging to various groups. This is indeed a utopian idea, but there must be a way forward in this manner. I often hear from others that things will have to get tough and hard before there are improvements. But if the pendulum always swings back and forth, we are bound to return to the inequities of the past, with a new group of privileged and a new group of the disadvantaged. So how do we ensure that the pendulum stops swinging and we build a roulette that rotates equitably? If we could begin to imagine such a transformation rather than nitpicking at current structures for changes here and there, we could reach our solution sooner.

Knowing what I have read about organizational change however, I understand that things happen slowly. It takes a lot for systems to change permanently. Even looking at our experience with the pandemic, things went back to normal quite rapidly after the vaccines were developed. Well, that may not actually be completely true. Some parts of society cling on to the ways of the pandemic, such as working from home, wearing masks, and staying isolated. Perhaps these monumental social events create more fractured and diversified ways of living that offer more creative ways of being in our increasingly pluralistic world. In such a multifaceted society, we have no dominant culture and everyone exists in their own ways without bothering others. Perhaps this is what multiculturalism is all about. But as I know from studying and living in Canada, I see multiculturalism as fragile and weak, an easy default mode for a society requiring regular injection of immigrant populations to function. Similarly, tonight's guest presenter mentioned that allyship is weak and easy. Instead, co-conspiratorship is preferred, as it is a stronger and invested form of making change happen. I agree with this because interculturalism is a more healthy and relational way to coexist in society rather than multiculturalism where everyone exists in a separate silo. So in the end, it comes down to relationships, relationships, and relationships again. This is something that is drilled in educational spaces. As an introvert, I naturally find relationships difficult to build and maintain. But I am always working on it as an educator and a human being with a need for interaction.

Ultimately, leadership should not be about who holds power, but how power is shared and reimagined. The challenge is not just to replace traditional leaders with more diverse faces, but to fundamentally rethink how leadership functions. Instead of merely shifting who drives the bus, we should be asking whether we need a bus at all—or whether it’s time to build something entirely new. This shift requires deeper investment, not just in representation but in structural transformation, where leadership is seen as a shared, relational, and dynamic process rather than a fixed role. Only by imagining leadership beyond its current boundaries can we create truly equitable and inclusive spaces.