Racism in Leadership Development

Leadership development programs significantly influence individual and organizational success. However, many existing frameworks implicitly reinforce racist ideals, systematically marginalizing certain groups. This post explores racism’s roots within leadership development, highlighting historical context, contemporary implications, and practical strategies for dismantling exclusionary practices. Practitioners need to be mindful of the impact even the smallest leadership decisions have on constituents and the communities that surround them. Organizations willing to look critically at the systems they uphold—and the ways in which those systems can better meet community needs—will be successful in shifting the narrative of what leadership looks like. Those who resist will perpetually recreate the same outcomes, no matter how many strategic planning initiatives or workplace culture trainings they go through. This isn’t about reenacting a few key phrases when working with colleagues or stakeholders, but about reinventing the systemic and often subtle ways in which we perpetuate our beliefs.

Leadership development is critical for organizational growth and community well-being. Yet, the roots of contemporary leadership development contain deeply ingrained biases derived from racist and exclusionary practices. Examining these foundations reveals how current leadership paradigms perpetuate systemic racism and provides insights into the ‘invisible’ ways these practices show up.

Historical Foundations of Racism in Leadership Development

Here is a hard truth for many leadership practitioners and organizations: most contemporary leadership models are influenced by Darwinism and eugenics, reflecting hierarchical frameworks favoring White, Christian, heteronormative ideals. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) was used to support racial hierarchies and justify the superiority of White men, cloaked in the language of science. These ideas were further entrenched by Sir Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, through the eugenics movement, which advocated selective breeding based on perceived intelligence and morality.

Years later, Max Weber exacerbated these biases by aligning leadership traits with Protestant work ethics and economic prosperity, implicitly reinforcing racial and gender exclusivity. Ever hear of Charismatic Leadership? That’s Weber’s work. Unfortunately, it continues to fuel those ubiquitous “10 traits all leaders should have” lists I see on LinkedIn and other platforms almost daily.

Ideal Types and Their Role in Exclusion

One of Weber’s concepts, the “Ideal Type,” deeply influences modern leadership standards. The ideal type is a mental model people use to measure their experiences and expectations against reality. It outlines the “right way” or “best way” to do something. Unfortunately, the ideal type doesn’t actually exist- it’s a thought exercise that often plagues our leaders.

Based on performance, the ideal type of anything is a composite of someone’s favorite characteristics as they see them enacted. This means that even if someone embodies the values we say we want in leaders, they can be dismissed if they don’t perform them in a way the observer approves of. The reverse is also true, individuals who do not genuinely live those values may still be accepted as ideal leaders if they perform them convincingly.

The ideal leader archetype typically embodies White, Western, male characteristics, excluding diverse identities. Leaders outside this narrow archetype face significant barriers to acceptance, irrespective of competence. This shows up in workplaces through code-switching demands and the false separation of work and personal life- rules which, in practice, are disproportionately applied to women and people of color. White men are often afforded the privilege of being fully human in professional spaces, including expressing emotions and integrating their personal lives into their work.

Consequences of Racist Foundations

The impact of these exclusionary models is profound. They create barriers for marginalized leaders, marginalize their experiences and leadership styles, and affect individual well-being, organizational performance, and societal equity. The loss of diverse perspectives undermines innovation and adaptability, essential traits in a globalized world. These systems are designed to burn out those who resist or challenge them.

I once had a respected professor tell me they expected students to fail their class, or else the curriculum wasn’t rigorous enough. That mindset rewards exclusion, not growth. It prioritizes gatekeeping over new ideas and ways of learning or being.

Racism and Leadership in Contemporary Practice

Despite societal progress, many modern leadership development resources still promote exclusionary ideals. Popular books and frameworks authored primarily by White men reinforce implicit biases, subtly perpetuating racism and sexism in corporate and nonprofit settings.

Brief Case Studies

Case Study 1: Youth Leadership Programs

Youth programs often unintentionally replicate exclusionary practices through generic leadership activities that emphasize values and goal-setting without culturally relevant framing. This alienates non-conforming youth and diminishes their engagement. In my research, youth who described negative leadership experiences almost always held two or more marginalized identities, racial, religious, socio-economic, gender, sexuality, or family structure. These practices made them feel “less than human.”

Case Study 2: Corporate Leadership Training

Traditional corporate leadership models, particularly transactional and transformational leadership, prioritize competition and economic gain, echoing colonial and capitalist frameworks. These models often ignore or devalue leadership traits found in many marginalized communities, such as collective decision-making or relational trust.

Who determines whether someone is practicing “good” leadership? What biases shape that judgment? Transformational leadership is frequently touted as progressive, but its power dynamics remain opaque. Is it the leader or the follower who holds power? Who defines appropriate transformation?

Reimagining Inclusive Leadership Development

1. Decolonizing Leadership Development

Decolonizing leadership requires recognizing and integrating non-Western practices and ways of knowing. This means genuinely listening to people with lived experience and unfamiliar perspectives, and doing the work to understand them.

When I teach intercultural communication, I emphasize that competence isn’t about memorizing facts about different cultures. It’s about recognizing multiple ways to reach an outcome, listening with the intent to understand, and adapting your communication to make room for others to be heard. Sometimes, that also means setting aside our ego. A mentor once told me: “When giving feedback, ask yourself, is this for their benefit, or to satisfy your ego?”

2. Challenging Ideal Types

Organizations must explicitly question and dismantle the “ideal type” by redefining success metrics beyond traditional White-centric traits. Want to challenge ideal types? Invite people you normally avoid. Those who struggle to “fit” into your systems are often the ones with the most generative insights.

3. Inclusive Pedagogies and Frameworks

Inclusive leadership development requires integrating cultural competency, intersectionality, and emotional intelligence into training. It also means addressing harmful power dynamics. Many of us know a board member who is consistently critical and unhelpful and yet remains in place. That kind of behavior is rarely isolated and can derail inclusive initiatives.

Practical Recommendations

·      Conduct audits of leadership frameworks to identify and remove biases.

·      Train facilitators to recognize and dismantle implicit biases.

·      Develop inclusive leadership metrics that value diverse expressions.

·      Center historically marginalized voices in leadership curricula.

Future Directions

Organizations truly committed to equity must invest in long-term research and innovation. Challenging leadership norms requires consistent, deliberate engagement and structural change. Cultivating diverse leadership pipelines isn’t just about who gets invited, it’s about who stays, thrives, and shapes the future.

Conclusion

Systemic racism in leadership development is historically rooted and structurally reinforced. Addressing it requires courageous introspection and sustained action. By redesigning leadership development to genuinely embrace diversity, organizations can unlock creativity, equity, and inclusive innovation.