Navigating Identity, Power, and Privilege in the Early Stage of Group Leadership
Francis Kaklauskas and Stefan Bigboy
Perhaps at no previous time have the topics of identity, power, and privilege been as prominent in both dominant American culture and our work as group psychologists. The aim of this article is not to provide definitive or prescriptive practices for how leaders should address diversity in its many forms, but rather to explore options, considerations, and decision-making processes. The intention is to encourage ongoing, collaborative dialogue concerning the early stages of various groups’ lives.
Be it in group psychotherapy, classroom settings, or administrative roles, the tasks of group leadership has evolved significantly in recent years With the increasing awareness of the importance of acknowledging and respecting individual uniqueness, leaders are faced with choices (Kortantamer, 2023; King-Jordan & Gil, 2021; Kaklauskas & Nettles, 2019). Historically, leadership often relied on structured plans rooted in theoretical orientations or training (Köllen, 2019). These approaches were often shaped by Enlightenment period modernist frameworks and/or white supremacist ideologies that assumed a single method could be applied universally. (Ben-Amram & Davidovitch, 2024). Such frameworks held principles such as reductionistic either/or thinking, individualism and competition, meritocracy, perfection/objectivity, obedience to hierarchy/power, rapid progress, and so on. Such assumptions deemphasize principles of learning from difference, complexity, dynamism, and community belonging. (Binagwaho, et al., 2024). Individuals with identities or ideas that differ from the dominant culture or group composition risk exclusion, expulsion, mockery, silencing, and scapegoating.
Fortunately, various movements have challenged these modernists and white supremacy paradigms, including critical theory, feminist thought, race and ethnic studies, existential-humanistic traditions, and postmodern philosophy (Tesa et al., 2021) Kimberlé Crenshaw’s applied postmodern theory, particularly through the lens of intersectionality, underscores that while identity and groups may be socially constructed, cultural narratives exert profound real-world impacts on individuals and groups (Fiet, 2023; Drake & Hodge, 2022). Whereas our field has traditionally categorized individuals under a single demographic label, Crenshaw demonstrated that the experience of being a Black woman has qualitative, phenomenological, and judicial impacts that are greater than being solely Black or solely female (Anders et al., 2024). As Walt Whitman observed, “We contain multitudes”—but which aspects of these multitudes are we allowing to emerge and be validated in our groups, and which are we marginalizing, dismissing, ignoring, or oppressing? This increased awareness hopefully fosters inclusivity and reduces historically oppressive dynamics within our groups, yet it also renders the task of leadership more nuanced and uncertain. Leaders must not only navigate their own identities but also create environments that facilitate the same for others. With what blend of traditional models, newer models, creativity, and experimentation, can we meet our contemporary socio-cultural moment? The prevailing theory and research advocate that leaders introduce identity and diversity dynamics and topics early in group formation (Kirton & Greene, 2021). However, the methods and timing of such interventions may vary depending on many factors of group composition, setting, and the task of the group. Historically, the educational approaches around learning about diversity have been focused on intellectualization; however, the power of experience, exposure, embodiment, and practice has become popular and common. One’s growth is both in intrapsychic personal reflection and through learning with those who are different from ourselves. Though the language has shifted—from “best practices” to “deliberate practice”—the need for guidance on diversity remains. While the deliberate practice movement in multicultural psychotherapy offers valuable tools, it also emphasizes experience, practice, personal reflection, and collaboration. (Liu & Herndon, 2022). The group setting introduces additional layers of complexity. A single prescriptive model is unlikely to suit all group types, all members, or each unique leadership context.
In various cultural contexts, one may introduce oneself by mentioning aspects of one’s identity. For example, many indigenous people often introduce themselves to one another by identifying their tribal affiliations. Individuals whose religious customs include specific wardrobe attire publicly share aspects of their identity, including specific affiliations, that correspond with their values and beliefs. Greetings are often different within a specific identity group gathering than in mixed groups. For someone from a historically oppressed group, a dual consciousness may be occurring as one is aware of their group norms as well as dominant cultural norms.
As relational approaches replaced more opaque styles and with the increasing awareness of the centrality of identity in mental health and relational dynamics, it became common for leaders trained from dominant modalities and of dominant identities to disclose some aspects of their identity at the beginning of group meetings, particularly with an emphasis on gender identity. This was intended to support non-binary individuals and reduce the risk of misgendering. Many of us have either participated in or led groups that began this way. Many participants across the gender spectrum appreciated this approach; however, others preferred not to center group introductions on this single identity marker. Some non-binary members expressed a desire to be recognized beyond a singular label. For some, this practice of explicitly identifying parts of one’s identity may undermine a sense of safety in contexts that have a history of trauma. Some individuals prefer establishing rapport and connection before discussing identities, while for others, discussing identities helps to create this sense of safety.
In response, some leaders have adopted alternatives, such as insisting that everyone use participants’ names instead of pronouns during the initial process, and allowing individuals to come forth with their preferred pronouns at a time of their choosing. While gender identity and pronouns are one option for introductions, leaders must consider what aspect of identity they may encourage as a group works towards becoming a team. The field has countless icebreaking group practices with the aim of building connection and cohesion, but which ones to choose and why remains part of the decision-making process. The leader also has choices to make in terms of how they introduce their own identity. Some leaders in their introduction may disclose multiple aspects of their identity, including race, age, gender, socioeconomic status, ability, and personal history. Others may selectively highlight certain demographic factors, particularly areas in which they hold privilege (e.g., being white, Christian, upper-middle-class, age, cisgender, heterosexual, neurotypical, etc.) Other leaders may focus on identities that have been historically marginalized and oppressed. These leadership decisions become especially complicated when leaders are in the period of deep engagement with exploring or reconciling their own identities and socio-cultural histories,
Leader can feel uncertain about whether, when, or how to share their identities and heritage. One mixed-race colleague expressed internal struggles as they may be white-passing or have been mistakenly identified as belonging to a different racial group. In these cases, oversimplification or misidentification of identity can feel erasing or harmful to them. Such acute sensitivity leads to the desire to have others feel understood in their complexity. Given a leader’s own intersectional identity, lived experience, and training, leaders may choose to bring in part of their cultural traditions directly into this forming stage of the group. Non-European traditions can emphasize the ideas of community, a slower reflective pace, and respect for all living things. While others, given their setting, feel they must present in a manner not too dissimilar to the norms of the embedding organization or group composition, to begin the process.
A facilitator’s relationship with the topics of identities may bring forth a few common patterns, such as fear, avoidance, activation, and performativity (Kocatoskin, 2025). Doing personal work to identify one’s patterns is important for recognizing the implicit forces that may otherwise shape one’s approach to the group. Personal and collective historical ruptures in safety and trust may be echoing in the room during the forming stage. The leader must consider the context and the group’s ability to acknowledge these forces.
A leadership goal is to help the group move towards its identified objectives. The degree of emphasis on identity will vary depending on the group’s composition and purpose, but ignoring identity differences and their impacts is rarely beneficial. As leaders, we strive to understand what may empower or hinder group functioning.
Members will inevitably have diverse preferences for when and how identity is discussed, and leaders will not always address the topic in a manner that everyone believes is best. Nonetheless, enabling these conversations provides critical opportunities for learning, growth, acknowledging difference, and deeper group connection. While how individuals may differ may be immeasurable, certain identity groups’ experiences of oppression and injustice continue to be measured. Important demographic variables that have been traditionally accepted in the research include gender, race, urban versus rural settings, and age, while research and theory with other foci have not gained as wide exposure. With the increasing inclusion of intersectional identity in research and theory development, we must take a critical eye towards previous work to find its current applicability and areas in which it may be limited.
Recent developments in psychology have introduced or refocused other areas of intersectional identities. The awareness and interest in neurodiversity have become common in clinical practice, educational settings, and employment settings. The newly launched APA division, which focuses on the impact of social class, highlights an expansion into areas that have traditionally been the focus of more economic and political discussions. The broad concept of accessibility continues to gain focus in the literature and in social awareness. Accessibility may encompass physical, economic, transportation, language, acculturation, accommodations, and other domains that prevent individuals from gaining the same access to care and opportunities that others may have (Bornschlegl & Caltabiano, 2022). Leaders may hold a hierarchy in their minds of which demographic variables are central, and importantly, can examine their reasoning and its potential impacts.
Our culture and the discourse around identity continue to evolve. Practices that were promoted even a few years ago are now being re-evaluated, with their limitations becoming more apparent through trial. Leaders experiment with different strategies based on the group’s membership and goals, often with mixed results. Listening, learning from others, repairing, and collaborating remain central to our work in leadership. Perhaps the expectation of getting it “right” is itself a barrier to authentic connection. Willingness, commitment, engagement, humility, and experience may be the most essential qualities we can bring to this indispensable work.
References
Anders, A. D., DeVita, J. M., Fisher, L. A., Corr, C., & Myers, C. L. (2024). Looking back to look forward: exploring Crenshaw’s political, structural, and representational intersectionality in sport. Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies, 24(1), 65-80.
Beaulieu, T., & Reeves, A. (2022). Integrating Indigenous healing and Western counseling: Clinical cases in culturally safe practice. Indigenous knowledge and mental health: A global perspective, 255-281.
Bornschlegl, M., & Caltabiano, N. J. (2022). Increasing accessibility to academic support in higher education for diverse student cohorts. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 10
Binagwaho, A., Ngarambe, B., & Mathewos, K. (2022). Eliminating the white supremacy mindset from global health education. Annals of Global Health, 88(1), 32.
Ben-Amram, M., & Davidovitch, N. (2024). Novice teachers and mentor teachers: from a traditional model to a holistic mentoring model in the postmodern era. Education Sciences, 14(2), 143.
Drake, B., & Hodge, D. R. (2022). Social work at the crossroads: The empirical highway or the postmodern/critical off-ramp?. Research on Social Work Practice, 32(4), 363-373.
Fiet, J. O. (2023). Feminisms, Gender, Disability, and Fat Studies as Postmodern Concerns. In Entrepreneurship in a Time of Social Justice Advocacy (pp. 163-189).
King-Jordan, T., & Gil, K. (2021). Dismantling privilege and white supremacy in social work education. Advances in Social Work, 21(2/3), 374-395.
Kirton, G., & Greene, A. M. (2021). The dynamics of managing diversity and inclusion: A critical approach. Routledge.
Kocatoskin, U. (2025). Somatic awareness of socially privileged identities in mental health counselors: A practice-based, arts-based inquiry utilizing Buddhism-based contemplative practice. http:ciis.zoom.us/ 988374282, May 9, 2025
Köllen, T. (2019). Diversity Management: A Critical Review and Agenda for the Future. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30, 259 – 272.
Kortantamer, D. (2023). Rethinking leadership in projects for a resilient and just future. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. PP(99):1-11
Liu, N. H., & Herndon, J. L. (2022). A framework for culturally humble therapeutic responses using the deliberate practice multicultural orientation video prompts. Practice Innovations, 7(3), 178.
Swallow, D. (2020). Managing diversity in the classroom. Training, Language and Culture, 4(2), 67-80.
Tesar, M., Gibbons, A., Arndt, S., & Hood, N. (2021). Postmodernism in education. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford.
Francis Kaklauskas and Stephen Bigboy work closely and grow together through their work with Naropa University’s Interpersonal Dynamics Lab and Community Dynamics Lab courses.
.