photo by partie traumatic

“Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic.  Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This often quoted comment by Dr. King forms the foundation of Adam Kahane’s new book,  Love and Power: A theory and practice of social change. Melinda Weekes and I attended a recent book talk by Adam, attracted to the topic because, at IISC we’ve been thinking through and practicing the connections among power, love, networks and collaboration for years now.  Much of what Adam shared resonates with our thinking. The book builds on the thinking of theologian Paul Tillich.   His definitions are worth taking a closer look:

• “Power: the drive of everything living to realize itself with increasing intensity and extensity.”  The focus is on development, growth, and self-determination.

• “Love: the drive towards the unity of the separated.” The focus here implies an underlying unity that has been lost or broken.

Adam argues, and we agree, that joining love and power holds a key to powerful social transformation.  And, he reminds us, as Dr. King did, of that both love and power have positive/generative dimensions, and negative/degenerative dimensions.

Where have you seen loveless exercises of power at in social change work?  Where have you seen powerless expressions of love?  And, most intriguingly, where have you see a powerful combination of power and love in their most positive, generative manifestations, help to change the world?

Photo by hangdog

A couple of months ago, I wrote a blog post about the constructive engagement of conflict – called Stay! Stay! Stay! It was some thinking sparked by reading the beginning of Bernie Mayer’s new book “Staying with Conflict“. I’ve been reading more of that book this week – and thinking as well about the work IISC is doing to become an anti-racist, anti-oppression, pro-liberation organization. (And yes, we do know that’s a mouthful!)

So part of what Bernie Mayer writes about in his new book is the need to build the adaptive capacity and platforms from which to stay with the tensions and conflicts that are an essential part of the human experience, to engage in a way that brings human dignity and that allows us to really stay in the difference.

What does this have to do with our work to become a liberation organization? I was reflecting on my own journey as a white woman engaging in this work – and the very strong (sometimes overwhelming) tendency I’ve had at times to do something to “fix it” – to want to jump to the answer. As if the incredibly complex, structural issues that are oppression are something that might have a simple way out (and, fully engaging my white privilege – as if I could somehow miraculously figure out what was needed). I’ve come to accept, over time, the need to keep heading in the direction of the north star while staying in the uncomfortable mess that is our historical reality.

So here it is again, the practice of learning to stay with uncertainty, with what’s uncomfortable – and yet, to fully engage in a way that is full of love, bringing human dignity to ourselves and everyone around us, and continuing to take whatever steps we can.

Photo by A Perfect Vacuum

This is the fourth in a series of postings about power and group facilitation processes, based on research from a few years ago.� Today’s post is about how power is built into group narrative.

As I was doing research, I came across a batch of work about narrative theory by Sara Cobb and Janet Rifkin (cited below).� Cobb and Rifkin researched how a narrative is constructed and what impact it has on the ultimate outcome of mediation sessions.� They found that the first story told tends to be privileged and “colonize” later stories told.� By framing the discussion to come, this initial story tends to narrow and define the direction of the ensuing conversation.� Later versions are generally tied to the initial story and thus are unable to be fully developed.� And the outcome of mediation is generally tied to the initial story.

This can also play a role in group facilitation.� If the first version told in a group becomes the frame under which all other discussion happens, a facilitator must pay attention to who tells the first story – or to how to reinforce different versions.

Cobb described the importance of cultural resonance in creating coherent stories.� When you consider situations in which different groups of people may have significantly different interpretations of events, it’s critical to design processes which ensure that many different interpretations of a story are viewed as legitimate – else the dominant narrative will win out.

So what do we do?� How do we ensure that the first or dominant story doesn’t interfere with over versions being told?� Cobb had a number of suggestions.  She encourages the use of private sessions with each person before a joint meeting to help each person develop a complete narrative.� In group facilitation, alternative approaches would be to survey a group about their versions before someone (often the leader with positional power) frames the discussion, to individually interview participants ahead of time, and to ask people to spend a few minutes individually writing their responses to questions or sharing them with one other person.� Cobb also encourages a mediator to facilitate the full participation of all participants by using tools for intervening in the development of a narrative.� And finally, she advocates for “circularizing” the narrative to ensure that everyone’s voice and contribution is fully incorporated.

Have you seen this kind of thing in group facilitation?� Do you have other ideas for how to ensure that one narrative doesn’t colonize the others?

Here are some citings if you want to read more:

Cobb, S. (1993). Empowerment and mediation: A narrative perspective.� Negotiation Journal, 9(3), 245-259.

Cobb, S., & Rifkin, J. (1991). Practice and paradox: Deconstructing neutrality in mediation. Law and Social Inquiry, 16, 35-62.

Rifkin, J., Millen, J., & Cobb, S. (1991). Towards a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality. Mediation Quarterly, 9(2), 151-164.

Photo by Kevin H

More about power and group processes.� There have been a mountain of books written about the “bases of power” and the “types of power”.� I’ve done some work to try to boil it down – and find thinking about this very useful in moving forward the conversation about how to address power issues in group processes.

In the 1950s, French and Raven put out a proposal about five “bases” of power, which others added to. Bases of power are what gives a person or group power.� French and Raven came up with these five:

• Reward Power – power that comes from the ability to reward the other party for complying
• Coercive Power – power that comes from the ability to punish the other party if they do not comply
• Legitimate or Normative Power – power that comes from accepted group, community or societal norms or values which are generally viewed as “legitimate”
• Referent Power – power that comes from being identified with a person or group (for example, so and so gains power by being friends with X or being a member of Y group)
• Expert Power – power that comes from the perception that the person or group has knowledge

Morton Deutsch later added a sixth:

• Ecological Power – power that comes from being able to control one’s social or physical environmental in such a way that the modified environment induces a desired behavior or prevents an undesired behavior.

As well, there are some types of power that seem especially relevant when thinking about facilitating group processes.

• Environmental Power – “A” is more able to influence his or her environment and overcome its resistance than “B”
• Relationship Power – “A” is more able to influence “B” favorably and to overcome “B’s” resistance than “B” is able to do with “A”
• Personal Power – “A” is more able to satisfy his desires than “B”
• Issue Power – “A” sets the agenda for the conversation, determines which information will be shared and which topics will be discussed, who will be involved in discussions and decisions.

Issue power is critical to agenda design and facilitation.� Foundational to IISC’s methodology are attention to stakeholder involvement and clarity about decision making.� Determining which conversations will and won’t happen can limit what actions may be taken afterward. “Non-decisions” can limit the scope of a conversation and of decisions being made – both in good and bad ways.� Without full information, people may be aware of and raise important issues.� And the initial framing of a discussion has been shown to have a very significant impact on decisions that are made.

And again, power is operating at different levels: at the interpersonal level, the group level and the systemic or structural level. At the systemic level, Joyce Fletcher describes that power tends to function in more insidious ways and has much less to do with personal authority than with conventional wisdom about what is considered “normal” or “appropriate.”� Without careful attention, we can easily internalize, accept and give voice to dominant thinking, unknowingly reinforcing the status quo.

Which brings me to a few questions for this week.� What other bases and types of power do you see operating in groups? And what does all of this have to do with thinking about how to design and facilitate a group conversation? What would you add?

Photo by Carina Ice

One of the first questions you might ask when thinking about looking at power dynamics in group facilitation is what IS power anyway? This seemingly simple question, of course, is not really all so simple after all. What do you think? How would you describe power?

When I first started trying to answer this question for myself, I found that I was overwhelmed with material -� literally hundreds and hundreds of books about what power is, where it comes from, how it operates, etc.� For many, a definition of power has to do with the ability to force something to do something they wouldn’t have done otherwise – a coercive definition of power.� Feminist psychologist Jean Baker Miller described power as “the capacity to produce a change.” Others (and in fact, our common terminology) talks about power as a “thing” that can be divided, shared, owned, and transferred.

Digging through this literal mountain of information, and being greatly influenced by people like Mary Parker Follett (who wrote in the 1920s), the understanding I came to is that power is a self-developing capacity that is relational in nature – meaning that it’s not something fixed or owned – or as Follett says, “it’s not a pre-existing thing which can be handed out to someone, or wrenched from someone.” More and more, this relational definition has taken hold, as has the notion of it being a capacity rather than a fixed asset (though you still commonly hear talk about “sharing” power rather than building power).

And embedded in a relational view of power is the need for those with less power to endorse the power of those who have it.� According to Elizabeth Janeway, talking about power as the possession of certain people may actually help maintain the status quo by making it seem impossible to challenge those who are described as powerful, rather than demonstrating that power operates through the consent of the governed.

So what does this mean? What changes in how we think about group process if we start to think of power not as a fixed thing that can be “shared” – but as something that can be built within a group?� How can you start to think about figuring out what kinds of power exist in a group and what may be blocked?� How would you design and facilitate in a way that builds the power of everyone in the room?� Or that builds power to take out into the world?

Photo by Great Beyond

A few years ago, I researched and wrote a masters’ thesis on addressing power dynamics in collaborative process design and facilitation.� I was doing the study based on great questions raised over the years by Cyndi Suarez (Co-Director of Northeast Action) – and with the belief that if power dynamics are not well understood and addressed, group process facilitators are likely to unknowingly reinforce the status quo – a scary thought for those of us working on social justice and social change!

It was an amazing, exciting and fully engaging project – which involved doing significant research on power, as well as in-depth interviews with all the Senior Associates at the Interaction Institute for Social Change to try to find out answers to questions like:

• What kind of power dynamics we see most frequently in groups we work with
• How IISC trainers/facilitators “diagnose” power dynamics in a group
• What responsibility we feel to address power dynamics – and which kinds
• How we address power dynamics
• What tools are most helpful in addressing power dynamics
• What individuals bring to this work
• What backgrounds/experiences support our ability to address power issues in a room
• Our greatest challenges related to addressing power dynamics
• How much we should make explicit about power
• What we wish we knew more about

One thing that woke me up at two in the morning – one of those notorious “aha” moments – was that when doing an extensive literature review of group facilitation literature and conflict resolution literature at that time (2005), I found that conflict resolution/engagement literature is packed full of discussions about addressing power dynamics – while group facilitation literature rarely (if ever) talks about power.� I only found a very small handful of references to power (as in two or three) anywhere in the very extensive group facilitation literature – and only in reference to people with positional power.� There is, in fact, an assumption built into group facilitation methodology that collaboration on its own somehow balances power dynamics.

I’m hoping to write over the next few weeks (or longer – we’ll see how long it takes) about what I found and some questions or ideas that came from it.� But before I launch full steam into it, I wondered what you might find helpful to discuss.� What about how power dynamics show up in how a group process is designed or facilitated would you find most useful to discuss?� Let’s get to it!

The conversation had a lot to do with the difference between the implicit attitudes we have (our internalized attitudes about race) and our explicit attitudes (what we believe about ourselves and our values). It reminded me of research I read a couple of years ago by Samuel Gaertner and John Dovidio, social scientists who showed the difference between our implicit attitudes (which tend to be very racialized) and our values (which these days tend to be about things like equality and opportunity).

To oversimplify the research being presented at the conference, one might say that unlike the days of “historical racism”, in which implicit and explicit attitudes were much more aligned, most people currently have significant dissonance between implicit and explicit attitudes. So what can be done to help shift implicit attitudes? Over and over, research presented by people like Drew Westen, the Center for Social Inclusion and others found that engaging in carefully designed conversations about race makes all the difference. When done well, explicit conversations strengthen explicit frames and help to support a shift in our implicit attitudes.

As someone who has struggled over the years to shift my own racialized attitudes – and who has at times been frustrated with not being able to move the conversation forward, I found this research incredibly exciting and hopeful. There are ways to move forward! And still much to learn – about how to engage these unconscious places in ourselves and others and create change. (We can’t make it all personal – and need to keep our eyes on the structural nature of much of what’s wrong – learning to shift the structures that keep things separate and unequal.)� But on the level of having these explicit conversations about race, what are the ways that work best? What stories engage and strengthen our explicit frames while starting to create the shifts? I’m wondering what you’ve tried, what you’ve heard, what you understand. What can you share that will help us create the shifts we need?

“an inclusive and adaptable style that cultivates the ability to bring out the best in our diverse workforce and to fashion a sense of community with people from many parts of the globe. This inclusive form of leadership is in sync with many cultures, enabling a wide spectrum of people to engage, contribute and tap their potential.”

At the core of the book are eight principles for leadership in a multicultural age, eight core values that are cornerstones for the cultures she’s exploring. So a little preview of the eight principles Bordas :

1. Sankofa: Learning from the Past
2. I to We: From Individualism to Collective Identity
3. Mi Casa Es Su Casa: A Spirit of Generosity
4. A Leader Among Equals: Community Conferred Leadership
5. Leaders As Guardians of Public Values: A Tradition of Activism
6. Leaders as Community Stewards: Working for the Common Good
7. All My Relatives: La Familia, The Village, The Tribe
8. Gracias: Gratitude, Hope and Forgiveness

I haven’t finished the book yet, but wanted to pass it along as one of my current “must reads” for anyone interested in leadership in these times. I’ve been really loving reading it, and finding myself thinking in new ways with the turn of each page.

And wondering, what are you reading or thinking that helps raise the bar on how we can shift the ways we are together in communities or movements? I’d love to hear!

In the days before he was killed, my dad met with Hampton and others from the Party to talk about the Free Breakfast Program the Black Panther Party had started to feed children going to school with empty stomachs. My dad was hoping to connect the food company he worked for with the Chicago program to get donations of breakfast cereal for the program. I was with my dad on the anniversary of Hampton’s death this year – and asked him to retell the story, hoping Alzheimer’s hadn’t taken this memory, though I’ve heard the story many times.

I was reflecting on the importance of remembering and telling our stories. And as I remembered my Dad’s story, I also read about Fred Hampton. Hampton was an amazing youth organizer with the local NAACP, believing in community organizing as a route to social change. In 1967, at 19, he joined the Black Panther Party, becoming the Chairman of the Chicago Chapter a year later. Hampton created a movement, bringing together coalitions of people of color and poor whites – brokering non-aggression pacts between rival street gangs in Chicago and bringing in anti-racist white Appalachian kids to form the “Rainbow Coalition,” a term later adopted by Jesse Jackson and Mel King. Hampton called for bringing together oppressed people across identity groups to collaborate and organize a movement for change.

Said Hampton in 1969, “We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I’m talking about the white masses, I’m talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too. We’ve got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water! We’re gonna fight racism with solidarity.”

So today, I’m reflecting on words spoken 40 years ago by an amazing 21 year old leader – reflecting on the ways those words speak, as well, to what is still needed. Wondering what would happen if this kind of collaboration happened today and who is still raising this call. And how we can be sure to bring people in across groups to create a movement for real change.

Last week I started writing about the Interaction Institute for Social Change and our three lenses of collaboration.  We are talking about the sort of collaboration that is needed if we are to address the evolutionary challenges that define this historical moment.  We are talking about collaboration that catalyzes our collective wisdom and capacity to think new thoughts, the sort of collaboration that allows us to maximize our shared resources while inviting us to live ourselves into the world we are trying to build.  This is why I call this the lens of democracy, because it is the lens through which we define the best possible ways of being-with.

In order to actualize this truly transformative sort of collaboration we must give special attention to the lens of power, equity and inclusion.  When we come together to move forward in truly adaptive ways we are essentially saying that how we get there is as important as getting there.  When we take the lens of power, equity and inclusion into account we are essentially recognizing that there really is no outside – that the conditioning, the same histories and the same structures that we are working to undo actually help to define who and how we are.  Without this lens our collaborations can be reduced to replications of the same dynamics of oppression that we are working to undo – nothing changes.

At IISC we apply this lens by committing ourselves to the principle of stakeholder involvement, the idea that people should be participants in the decisions that affect their lives.  We use helpful tools for stakeholder analysis and we hold ourselves to a high standard of integrity in upholding this value.  But that is just the first step.  Through the application of design thinking we strive to structure interventions and conversations in ways that account for matters of power, equity and inclusion.  What are the right questions, the necessary conversations and the most useful ways to structure a flow that will move a group process forward without ignoring underlying dynamics?  This is what I call conscious design work.

Finally, and perhaps most important, is the energy and awareness that we bring to a training room or facilitation.  How are we as individual consultants, given our own history and background, our own place in the dynamics of power that define our nation, how are we to be present to what is and act, in that very space, in ways that re-invent us?  How do you?

Read Part 1

Read Part 3

Read Part 4