The dominant narrative around leadership in many areas of the world centers individualism over solidarity. It suggests that there is one kind of leadership and that a single person—one who intervenes to solve a problem or envision a bold new reality—embodies it. This “hero narrative” shows up in all spheres of life—in the lone TV show detective, for example, and in memoirs that credit Apple’s success primarily to Steve Jobs’ vision and relentless drive. It’s in remembrances of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s work, which often leave out the stories of the people and activists who guided him and who took their own risks and actions toward greater justice.

The deeply entrenched notion of a leader as an individual hero is not accidental. Many individuals and organizations with positional power want to maintain the status quo—rooted in racism, colonialism, sexism, and other “isms”—of who has power and who has a voice. This manifests in numerous ways, not least in financial support. An Echoing Green and Bridgespan Group report on funding leaders of color notes, “Looking just at [Echoing Green’s] highest qualified applicants … our research found that on average the revenues of the Black-led organizations are 24 percent smaller than the revenues of their white-led counterparts. When it comes to the holy grail of financial support—unrestricted funding—the picture is even bleaker. The unrestricted net assets of the Black-led organizations are 76 percent smaller than their white-led counterparts.”

Even the most well-intentioned social change advocates can’t unsee the hero narrative that surrounds us all, and so unknowingly echo and perpetuate it in the ways they choose leaders, decide what skills are most vital, and reward individual rather than collective gain. The sector looks for exceptional, charismatic individuals, and aims to help them attain a core set of skills and greater positional authority within their organizations. The top-down, individual hero narrative drives the design, funding, and evaluation of most leadership development programming. Leadership programs still track who ascends to board positions, for example, and the number of articles alumni publish. But while these achievements can indicate people’s contribution to change, they aren’t the only ways to measure success. It’s important that those who exercise leadership participate in conversations that define what success looks like to them and in their unique leadership context.

Operating within the individual leadership model also ignores the fact that the leadership that drives systemic social change—the kind of change that embraces the complexity of problems and confronts their root causes—does not happen alone or in silos; it is rarely the result of the actions and capabilities of one individual. The model also deprives the world of the strengths and experiences that people who are closest to social issues have to offer. These groups have important insights into how to solve social problems but are often left out of the circles that set strategies and allocate resources. Indeed, because leadership is not finite—meaning one person’s leadership neither takes away from nor negates the leadership of someone else—it is stronger when people share and exercise it collectively, when it centers existing wisdom and experiences, and when it works toward a bold vision for a more equitable future.

Read the full article about inclusive leadership narratives by Deborah Bae and Kiernan Doherty at Stanford Social Innovation Review.