logo
From I To We: The Collective Shift Women Leaders Are Making—And Why It's Working

From I To We: The Collective Shift Women Leaders Are Making—And Why It's Working

Forbes20-05-2025
Leadership is often framed as an individual pursuit. But at the recent WeTheChange gathering of women and nonbinary leaders of B Corps and values-aligned businesses, one truth resonated across every session, conversation, and shared moment: real change is collective.
As I sat among founders, CEOs, creatives, and community builders, I felt a rare mix of affirmation and relief. It was a room filled with people who had already 'made it'—and still knew that doing it alone wasn't the answer. The prevailing energy wasn't hustle or competition. It was we. Collaborative. Curious. Connected.
A powerful group of women leaders doing business in a way that's good for the world - and ... More themselves!
This shift from 'I' to 'we' isn't just a feel-good sentiment. It's an urgently needed evolution in how we think about power, progress, and performance. And it aligns beautifully with the Lead in 3D framework I've spent years learning, teaching, and living.
Lead in 3D is a simple but powerful framework that guides leaders to align their investments of time, energy, and attention across three essential dimensions:
When we get stuck in a single dimension—sacrificing 'Me' for the sake of 'World,' or neglecting 'We' in pursuit of 'Me'—we lose energy, perspective, and momentum. But when we lead in all three dimensions, we unlock sustainability and satisfaction. The shift from 'I' to 'we' doesn't erase the self. It integrates it into a broader ecosystem of change.
As Meghan French Dunbar, leadership expert and author of the forthcoming This Isn't Working, reminded us: women are more burned out, more stressed, and more likely to leave the workplace—not because we're less capable, but because we're navigating systems that were never designed for us. Her call was clear: stop contorting ourselves to fit broken norms. Start reshaping the norms to reflect who we are—and what we need to thrive.
Her words echoed the foundational insight of 3D leadership: performance doesn't have to require sacrifice. In fact, the data shows that when we center empathy, belonging, and shared wellbeing, results improve. Systems change starts with inner change. And that change becomes collective when we model it together.
Jessica Lau offered a metaphor that landed deeply: we need to move like geese flying in formation. In nature, each goose takes a turn leading—and rests in the slipstream when it's not their moment. No one flies alone. The formation creates efficiency, resilience, and shared direction.
In nature, each goose takes a turn leading—and rests when it's not their moment. No one flies alone.
It's the opposite of the solo-hero myth. And it's what I felt in that room: the ease and power of distributed leadership, of letting someone else carry the wind for a bit while you catch your breath—and then doing the same for them.
Leilani Raashida Henry's story brought us back to roots—literally. The daughter of the first person of African descent to set foot on Antarctica, she shared her own journey to that same continent, decades later. Her reflections reminded us that our presence in leadership is never just about us. It carries echoes of those who came before—and ripples into the lives of those who will come next.
Our presence in leadership is never just about us. It carries echoes of those who came before, as ... More Leilani Raashida Henry reminded us.
It was a moving reminder that our individual stories matter. Not to make us exceptional, but to make us connected. Our personal truths, our ancestral threads, our inner shifts—they're all part of collective change.
The event closed with a rousing moment led by Kate Dixon. One by one, each person stood and declared one action they would take. The range was stunning:
That last one got a loving nudge from across the room: 'Playing big a little is an oxymoron.' With a laugh, the speaker corrected herself: 'Okay, okay—play big a lot.'
It was a perfect metaphor for what we'd experienced: individual voices, strengthened by a collective container. Action made braver through shared witness. It wasn't about becoming someone new. It was about showing up as who we already are—together.
Like-hearted accountability is a powerful tool for action, in a way that serves our businesses, but ... More also our communities and ourselves!
As spiritual teacher Reverend angel Kyodo williams puts it: 'Without inner change there can be no outer change. Without collective change, no change matters.'
That's what we saw at WeTheChange: inner work becoming outer strategy. Personal insight becoming confidence to reimagine our systems. It's what we mean when we talk about 'leading in 3D.'
Some of us start with Me—recovering from burnout, reclaiming joy. Others begin with We—healing teams, reshaping culture. Still others begin with World—justice, equity, sustainability.
There's no wrong place to start. The key is to move, and to move together.
The old models of leadership told us to grind harder, do more, win alone. The new model invites us to align, collaborate, and rise—together.
We don't need to play by the old rules. We must write new ones. We can build workplaces—and systems—where thriving isn't the exception. Indeed, French Dunbar shared recent research by Stanford psychologist, Jamil Zaki, that demonstrated the return on investment of empathy as a superpower, leading private equity firm KKR to invest in empathy training programs for its portfolio companies' leaders.
This is the path to sustainable success, wellbeing, and shared prosperity.
And that change starts with We.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Bonuses are obviously going up,' according to UFC CEO Dana White, but by how much?
'Bonuses are obviously going up,' according to UFC CEO Dana White, but by how much?

Yahoo

time4 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'Bonuses are obviously going up,' according to UFC CEO Dana White, but by how much?

Picture this: It's 2007 and UFC lightweight Leonard Garcia has just received a $35,000 bonus for his Fight of the Night performance against Roger Huerta on the undercard of UFC 69. He lost the decision, but fought his heart out — as he always did — and the UFC rewarded him for it. Garcia felt pretty sure he was rich. I mean, $35,000? He had plenty of years when he didn't make nearly that much combined. That was some people's whole salary, and they worked hard for it. 'I just blew through that money real fast,' Garcia told me back in 2010. 'Coming from being in the smaller shows and then getting all that money all at once, it seemed like it was never going to run out. I just rode it into the dirt.' He learned from it, though. So three years later, when the UFC's parent company gave him a $65,000 bonus for another Fight of the Night, this time in what many also hailed as the Fight of the Year against Chan Sung Jung, he saved and invested it. He opened a three-year CD. He renovated his bathroom. You know, adult stuff. The last performance bonus Garcia received from the UFC was in 2011, when he lost another decision in another Fight of the Night, this time against Nam Phan at UFC 136. This time the bonuses were all $75,000. In other words, the bonuses had more than doubled in the span of four years. Garcia and other fighters could be forgiven, then, if they assumed this trend would continue. After all, the UFC and its parent company at the time only made more and more money each year. The events went from being broadcast on a niche men's-interest cable network like Spike TV to a major network TV partner in Fox. Then from there the UFC moved on to an even more lucrative deal with ESPN. And in 2026, as we learned this week, it will essentially double its broadcast rights revenue in a deal with Paramount. But in 2025, UFC bonuses are stuck at $50,000. With the exception of special events like UFC 300, they've held steady at that level for over a decade now. When adjusted for inflation, the $75,000 that Garcia and others received in 2011 is worth approximately $110,000 in today's money. While some events around the same time handed out bonuses worth far less, even the $35,000 Garcia received in 2007 would have been worth around $56,000 in 2025 money. All that is about to change, according to UFC CEO Dana White. Speaking to reporters Tuesday night, White promised some unspecified revisions to UFC fighter pay in the wake of this blockbuster deal with Paramount. But he did make one concrete financial promise: 'Bonuses are obviously going up, so that will be big.' White did not say how much bonuses would increase by. But clearly, these bonuses are a big deal to fighters. It's why they regularly plead for them in post-fight interviews. UFC featherweight Dan '50K' Ige even incorporated it as his nickname. Conor McGregor, the biggest star in either MMA or UFC history, delivered an iconic and oft-imitated moment early on in his career, following an impressive TKO win with the exhortation: 'Dana, 60 G's, baby!' (Again, that was 2013, when $60,000 had the the purchasing power of about $88,000 today.) So how much would UFC performance bonuses actually have to increase in order for it to be a true improvement on those handed out in the past? One starting point is to perform the simplest math available. The UFC's new broadcast rights deal is bringing in double the money of the previous one? Fine, double the bonuses. That would get us to $100,000 per bonus. But even that would fall short of keeping pace with inflation when compared with those 2011 bonuses. The biggest performance bonuses the UFC ever handed out were at UFC 300 last year, when each one was worth $300,000. (Max Holloway pocketed two of the four bonuses available, for a total of $600,000 for his knockout win over Justin Gaethje.) If that became the standard, it would mean $1.2 million in bonuses for every UFC event. Multiplied by 43 events per year, that comes out to $51.6 million per year in performance bonuses, which, to a lot of people, probably sounds like a lot. But it's also about 5% of the UFC's average yearly take in this new broadcast rights deal with Paramount. And that doesn't even factor in any of the other revenue sources, like ticket sales or site fees or international broadcast rights. Would the UFC actually consider a bonus increase of that magnitude? Based on everything we know it seems … doubtful. That's likely not just because TKO would rather keep the money than pay it out to people who have no real leverage or recourse to force such a reckoning. It's also probably because a fighter who suddenly has $300,000 in the bank is a lot less compliant when it comes to things like stepping in on short notice to plug holes in upcoming fight cards. Then again, hasn't the UFC told us again and again that it's a meritocracy where you 'eat what you kill'? The whole idea behind the performance bonuses is to motivate fighters to fight hard and put on a show for the fans. Imagine how much harder a prelim fighter making $20,000 to show would fight if you gave him a crack at a $300,000 bonus. And imagine what a bunch of fights like that might do for Paramount+ subscriptions.

Goldman Flags Falling Survey Responses as Key Driver of Big Data Revisions
Goldman Flags Falling Survey Responses as Key Driver of Big Data Revisions

Yahoo

time4 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Goldman Flags Falling Survey Responses as Key Driver of Big Data Revisions

Goldman Sachs says a key reason behind the unusually large revisions to recent U.S. economic data could be falling survey response rates. Analysts led by Jan Hatzius examined more than 30 indicators over the past decade and found measures like JOLTS job openings, retail sales, and nonfarm payroll growth have seen bigger revisions partly due to fewer responses. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with AMD. The debate intensified after the July jobs report delivered one of the largest two-month payroll revisions in decades outside the pandemic, prompting former President Donald Trump to fire Bureau of Labor Statistics chief Erika McEntarfer. Trump accused her of rigging numbers before last year's election a claim she denied. Goldman noted other forces at play, including pandemic-related seasonal distortions that skewed initial prints for jobless claims and manufacturing surveys. Trump's replacement pick suggested halting the monthly jobs report, though the White House confirmed it would continue. Markets shrugged off the data drama, with Wall Street hitting record highs Tuesday on softer July inflation and Fed rate cut hopes. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store