Currently Empty: $0.00
Aminah Elster
- September 23, 2024
- Comment 0
In the nonprofit and governmental sectors, we often hear about the importance of meritocracy—the idea that leadership should be based on an individual’s skills, credentials, and proven abilities. While meritocracy sounds like an equitable solution, it often excludes the most essential factor in leadership: lived experience.
For people with lived experience (PWLE)—those who have directly experienced the struggles that government policies and nonprofit initiatives aim to address—merely offering a seat at the decision-making table is not enough. If we want to see transformative change, it’s time we redefine leadership to value lived experience alongside investment in training and education. Without this investment, we risk turning inclusion into tokenism, leaving PWLE unprepared to fully participate in leadership roles.
The truth is, lived experience must be paired with investment to dismantle the oppressive power structures that continue to dominate our leadership models. This investment isn’t just a nice-to-have—it’s a necessary component for effective leadership and real systemic change.
The Myth of Meritocracy: Who Gets to Lead?
The idea of meritocracy suggests that anyone with the right qualifications can rise to the top. In theory, it’s a level playing field, where those who have proven their competence through education, training, and professional experience are rewarded with leadership positions. But in practice, meritocracy often excludes marginalized voices—particularly PWLE—who may not have had access to the same opportunities for formal education or career development as their peers.
Leadership shouldn’t just be about credentials. It should also be about understanding the challenges that policies and programs aim to address. Who better to guide the development of housing programs than someone who has experienced homelessness? Who better to shape public health initiatives than someone who has navigated the healthcare system with barriers due to race, class, or disability? Lived experience is a form of expertise, and yet it is often overlooked in favor of traditional credentials.
This isn’t to say that lived experience alone is enough. Effective leadership requires support, training, and resources to allow PWLE to thrive in roles where they can influence policy and program development. Without this investment, we risk bringing PWLE into leadership positions where they aren’t fully equipped to succeed—leading to frustration and reinforcing the very power structures we seek to dismantle.
Lived Experience as Expertise
We need to broaden our understanding of what counts as expertise. Academic credentials and professional experience have their place, but they don’t always capture the complexity of lived realities. People who have navigated broken systems or experienced the impact of failed policies firsthand bring invaluable insight into leadership discussions.
Consider the example of housing policies. Traditional leadership in this sector may consist of people with advanced degrees in urban planning or public policy. But unless they have experienced housing insecurity themselves, their decisions may lack the necessary nuance to address the root causes of homelessness or housing instability. On the other hand, PWLE bring a deep, personal understanding of the challenges faced by those the policies are meant to serve, as well as a unique perspective on what works—and what doesn’t.
Lived experience gives leaders an empathetic approach and a practical understanding of the problems that can’t be learned in classrooms or through career paths far removed from the realities on the ground. This expertise, however, should not be a substitute for investment in leadership training and education. PWLE should be provided with opportunities to develop their skills, build networks, and access the resources they need to complement their lived experience with the tools necessary for effective leadership.
Why Investment in PWLE is Critical: Training, Education, and Power Sharing
Bringing PWLE into leadership roles without investing in their professional development is not only unfair—it’s setting them up for failure. Tokenism occurs when organizations include individuals with lived experience in decision-making roles but don’t provide the support and resources they need to truly thrive. Tokenism is dangerous because it gives the appearance of inclusion while reinforcing the same power dynamics that have historically marginalized these individuals.
If we want to see genuine change, organizations need to invest in training and education that complements lived experience. This might mean offering leadership training programs specifically designed for PWLE, providing mentorship opportunities, or funding formal education for those who want to develop additional skills.
But investment goes beyond training and education. Power-sharing is crucial. Too often, PWLE are brought into leadership roles without real decision-making power. They are consulted, but their input is not taken seriously, or they are given roles where they lack the authority to enact change. Real power-sharing means creating structures where PWLE have equal say in leadership decisions, ensuring that their voices are not only heard but acted upon.
Leadership in Practice: Case Studies of Success with PWLE-Led Models
There are successful models where organizations have fully integrated PWLE into leadership roles, supported by the right investments in training, education, and power-sharing structures. One standout example is BRG and its newly launched initiative, The Guild.
BRG’s Guild is a collaborative and training space designed for BRG fellow alumni, consultants, and clients to form connections, learn from one another, and work together on social impact projects. This initiative embodies BRG’s commitment to creating a leadership development pipeline for people with lived experience, equipping them to contribute at the highest levels of systems change.
A couple of weeks ago, BRG launched this innovative program with an event that included a training on fundamental consulting skills aimed at supporting the current cohort of Perez Research Fellows, as well as alumni who have gone on to establish their own consulting firms and nonprofit organizations. This programming ensures that PWLE not only have a seat at the table but are given the tools to lead impactful projects within the BRG network and beyond.
BRG doesn’t stop at internal development. They actively bring on sub-consultants with lived experience to lead and support BRG’s own consulting projects. This approach is a clear example of power-sharing—ensuring that the expertise gained from lived experience plays a central role in shaping BRG’s work. Through these partnerships, BRG elevates the voices of those directly impacted by the systems they aim to change, making sure PWLE leads the conversation at the project level.
This recent Guild event reconnected BRG alumni from seven different fellowships, showcasing the power of building a long-term network of leaders with lived experience. The Guild continues to strengthen these relationships through targeted programming that provides both training and collaborative opportunities.
BRG’s model highlights the importance of not just bringing PWLE into decision-making spaces but also investing in the development and leadership support necessary for them to thrive. When organizations take this comprehensive approach, the result is a leadership pipeline that is inclusive, impactful, and capable of creating transformative change.
Conclusion: Investing in Liberation through Leadership
We can no longer afford to see leadership as something that can be built solely through formal credentials and professional experience. Lived experience must be recognized as a key form of expertise, particularly in sectors like government and nonprofits, where policies directly affect marginalized communities. But we must also recognize that lived experience alone is not enough. Without investment in education, training, and power-sharing, bringing PWLE into leadership roles risks tokenism and further marginalization.
The path forward is clear: we need to redefine leadership. This means centering lived experience in decision-making processes while providing the necessary investment in leadership development for PWLE. By doing so, we can dismantle traditional power structures and build a model of leadership rooted in justice, equity, and liberation.
