July 12, 2018
Building on the theme of our recent blog post, Power Dynamics: The Hidden Element to Effective Meetings, we are reposting a series of posts written by our former IISC colleague Linda Guinee. Linda wrote a masters’ thesis on addressing power dynamics in collaborative process design and facilitation. She did this study based on questions raised over the years by another former IISC colleague, Cyndi Suarez (current Senior Editor at NonProfit Quarterly and author of The Power Manual: How to Master Complex Power Dynamics) – and as she put it, “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!”
As Linda wrote in her opening post in 2010:
“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.”
Here is her second post in the series …
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.
Read More
January 12, 2016
“Love is essential, gregariousness is optional.”
-Susan Cain
The following is a slightly edited re-post of something I wrote in early 2014. Since writing this, I continue to see the need to be vigilant around not privileging extroversion in groups, to provide more opportunities to tap a range of cognitive styles to leverage fuller potential in networks.
Having read Susan Cain’s book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Won’t Stop Talking, I feel both validated (as someone of more introverted tendencies as the years pass) and able to see with new eyes. IMHO, the book is well worth the read, and if the thought of tackling the 300 pages is daunting, you might enjoy a taste via Cain’s TED Talk.
Here I want to reflect on some of the insights Cain’s work has to offer collaboration and “net work” for change. Essentially, Cain reminds us of an important element of diversity that we should not overlook in our change efforts – different cognitive processing styles and ways of responding to social stimulation.
First of all, what is introversion? Introversion is not shyness or asocial behavior. People who are introverted can certainly be shy or socially awkward, but introversion is first and foremost a response to social stimulation. Relative to those who are more extroverted, those who are introverted prefer less stimulation and tend to work more slowly and deliberately. Introversion tends to favor intimacy, listening, and some time alone.
According to Susan Cain’s assessment of the research, one third to one half of people in this country are introverted, while many can display extroverted tendencies. Well-known introverts include the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Albert Einstein, Rosa Parks, Pablo Picasso, and Steve Wozniak.
“There’s zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas.”
In a fascinating historical review, Cain traces a mainstream cultural trend in the United States that shifted preference from what she calls “the culture of character” to “a culture of personality,” where public performance and gregariousness became equated with success and strong leadership (think Dale Carnegie and his books How to Win Friends and Influence People and Public Speaking and Influencing Men in Business). To this day, in many workplaces, schools, and families, Cain suggests that there is a preference for extroverted ways of thinking and being. This flies in the face of data suggesting that introverted styles can equate with stronger academic performance and deeper knowledge in given fields.
And yet there continue to be significant shifts toward open concept workplaces and group-oriented classrooms that privilege extroversion and create painful experiences for those who are more introverted, not allowing them to shine or bring their gifts to the relatively raucous table. The result is that we risk losing the gifts and talents of “quiet leadership” and creativity.
So what to do, especially in collective change efforts? A few thoughts:
- Pay attention to who speaks and does not speak up in meetings/groups and don’t immediately assume that the quiet people are aloof or uncaring.
- Think carefully before opening physical spaces and group processes too much or too often. Introversion thrives in settings where there is more personal space and opportunity to reflect alone and in small groups.
- Understand that brainstorming as it is often done (in person and through whole group discussion from the get-go) privileges extroversion, and that research shows it leads less to innovation and more to group bonding (not a bad thing). Make space for people to work and think alone before bringing a group and their ideas together.
- Leverage social media and virtual collaborative platforms as a way of helping to maintain autonomy and avenues for creativity that can fuel innovation and allow introversion to shine.
- Create space for “parallel play” and cooperation, as opposed whole group collaboration (see Harold Jarche – “In networks, cooperation trumps collaboration“).
- Embrace the power of quiet for everyone through space for writing, mindfulness, and other kinds of restorative practice.
Curious to hear any reactions and additions to these.
I will end with this important reminder from the introverted Mahatma Gandhi:
“In a gentle way you can shake the world.”
January 22, 2014
“Love is essential, gregariousness is optional.”
-Susan Cain
“How Not to Manage an Introvert” (by Nguyen Hung Vu)
For several months I’ve been meaning to read Susan Cain’s book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Won’t Stop Talking. Having completed it this past weekend, I have both a sense of validation (being one of ever-more introverted tendencies as the years pass) and being able to see with new eyes. IMHO, it is well worth the read, and if the thought of tackling the 300 pages is daunting, you might enjoy a taste via Cain’s TED Talk.
Here I wanted to reflect on some of the insights Cain’s work has to offer collaboration and “net work” for change. Read More
May 8, 2013
|Photo by Mike Licht|http://www.flickr.com/photos/notionscapital/6786051819|
Sometimes people call openness in group process and social engagement “disorganized” or “unstructured.” I find this to be a misperception and, frankly, unhelpful. Openness is differently organized and structured. It is different from many of the talking-at, entertainment-oriented, consumer-creating, and being-numbing settings to which we have grown accustomed.
Openness can certainly create discomfort, in part because it calls on us to step up and reach out, not hunker down and hide. It asks us to take responsibility and consider questions like, “What do I value?” “How do I want to contribute?” “What can we create here?” Openness is opportunity if we choose to act, knowing that through the perceived risk and any felt discomfort lies greater purpose, meaning and vitality.
January 13, 2010
I recently read an interesting New York Times article by Nancy Ancowitz that a friend sent me about the ways that extroverts are privileged in meeting processes and work environments. It’s something we talk about at IISC as well. What are the ways that we can design and facilitate meetings so as not to privilege extroverts over introverts – or people with different learning styles – or people with different abilities or aptitudes?
There’s a lot known. And there’s a lot still to discover. Much of generic group process (if not attending to these kinds of things) favors those who freely express ideas in groups. Day-long or multi-day meetings can be great for extroverts, who get energy being in groups – and challenging for introverts, who need alone time to recharge and process internally. Introverts will participate more fully if given time to consider material ahead of time. Extroverts tend to be exactly the opposite – or can quickly scan something in the room and go. Brainstorming is a natural thing for extroverts (who are comfortable putting forth ideas without necessarily knowing how fully “cooked” they are), but not so much for introverts (who tend to want to spend internal time thinking through an idea before putting it out).
Read More
