One of the challenges faced by forming groups is who makes decisions at the outset. When people first come together to explore whether or not it makes sense to form a group, there can be ambiguity about who has a voice in that.
Is it everyone in the room? Everyone who was invited to that first meeting (including those who couldn't make that first meeting)? Everyone identified as a stakeholder (including some who weren't even invited to that first meeting)? Only those in favor of moving forward? Those who show up to a second meeting after it has been announced ahead of time that the new group will form for x purpose on y date at z location? It can get confusing.
Because of the power and recognition associated with being a founder, some new groups are tempted to delay making decisions about purpose, values, and vision until the group has reached numbers that approximate the hoped for size of the group. While the impulse is understandable (you can only be a founder once; everyone who comes later is only a "joiner"), it's generally a mistake to delay these foundational decisions, if for no other reason than it's hard for people to know what they're joining if it's ill-defined. Who wants to join a fog?
While the dynamics outlined above can exist for any forming group, there are additional challenges for cooperative groups, where you can expect considerable sensitivity to the dynamics of power imbalances and how leadership roles are filled. In general, the dream of cooperative groups is that all members will have a say in how the group functions and what it does.
On a practical level however, it can get cumbersome waiting to hear from everyone before moving forward—especially as the numbers swell and it gets increasingly difficult to get everyone to a meeting. Thus, groups need to address the question of how they move forward on solid footing when members miss meetings. What is the balance of the rights of missing members with their responsibility to not hold the group up through their absence?
Healthy cooperative groups of a minimum size (say a dozen) will need to delegate in order to get their work done efficiently. This requires establishing clear mandates (whereby the subgroup is authorized to act on behalf of the whole), and it will require that the group define the qualities wanted in people filling leadership roles. Further, there will need to be decisions made about how leadership roles will be filled.
With respect to power (by which I mean the ability to get others to do something or agree to something) it will be a huge help if the group takes the time to develop a picture of how power can be distributed among the membership in a healthy way. (Hint #1: If your model is that it will be distributed evenly then you don't understand how it works; power is almost always distributed unevenly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's a problem if there's awareness of the distribution and the ability to talk openly and in depth about how that's playing out—after all, power can be used wisely.). If there is the perception that power is being used inappropriately, how will the group discuss it? (Hint #2: This can be a tough nut.)
Even if you accept my recommendations of essential things to put into place early on, there is still nuance about how early on. It is unlikely, for example, that you'll tackle these key process questions at your first meeting, yet you may need to establish who will call the second meeting and who will draft the agenda for it. Even these simple next-step questions move you in the direction of filling leadership roles and determining who has more power than others. On the one hand it's hard to generate enthusiasm about discussing process concerns at the first meetings (when the focus is more properly on trying to build up a bonfire of excitement about all the good things your group is going to do in the world). On the other hand, failure to do so early enough can inadvertently push you down the road of a poor start with respect to leadership and power dynamics.
People who are experienced in cooperative dynamics (and the traps that leaders can fall into) can be leery of taking on too much of a leadership role too soon, yet their failure to do so can put the group at risk of losing precious momentum. Even when a forming group desperately needs clear leadership, anyone stepping into that void is at risk of being suspected of immature ego management (because of how much people carry around with them the lesson that prior leaders tend to misuse their power). Yuck!
One of the reasons that forming groups tend to be overly cautious about making decisions that will define the group is the catch-22 dynamic of needing sound leadership in order to make sound decisions yet being nervous about determining the early leadership for fear of backing the wrong horse in the absence of appropriate checks and balances. Thus, the group can be hesitant about making decisions without clear leadership, and at the same time hesitant about designating leaders without a clear decision-making process. Gridlock.
When forming groups are sloppy about asking members to fill leadership roles (not being clear about what authority leaders have to operate on the group's behalf and when they need to consult) then everyone suffers. Good intentions are not enough. You have to spell it out if you want to dispel the fog.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Decision Making in a Fog
del.icio.usFriday, June 13, 2014
Talking to My Laptop
Starting July 2, and continuing every week until Aug 13, I'll be conducting a series of webinars about group dynamics every Wednesday afternoon. (See Laird's Greatest Hits for details.)
On the one hand, I'm thoroughly familiar with the material that I'll be presenting—all of the topics have been selected from workshops that I've delivered multiple times:
July 2: Consensus 101
July 9: Conflict: Fight, Flight, or Opportunity?
July 16: Membership: Questions You Should Have Asked Before Joining
July 23: Participation: Navigating the Swamp of Non-monetary Member Contributions to the Group
July 30: The Essentials of Dynamic Facilitation: How to Get Through the Agenda and Build Energy at the Same Time
Aug 6: Power Dynamics & Leadership in Cooperative Groups
Aug 13: Stump the Chumps: Q&A Session with Laird and Ma'ikwe about Cooperative Group Dynamics
What's different is that I'll be talking to my laptop rather than a roomful of faces, and I wonder how that will go.
As I have two hours set aside for each webinar, I think the time will naturally divide into two segments: 60-75 minutes of presentation, followed by 45-60 minutes of Q&A. The big question mark for me will be operating without the visual cues about how my presentation is landing with the audience (my laptop never smiles or even looks confused). Fortunately, Ma'ikwe will by monitoring comments and questions, funneling them to me as appropriate, so I won't have to be tracking chat boxes or hand waving graphics while working through my presentation outline (whew).
In the next couple weeks I'll prepare by walking through each of my presentations, looking for natural places to pause and ask questions of the audience, so that I'll be better able to gauge how well my points are getting across, adjusting as needed.
While we'll be offering electronic downloads of the webinars for people who miss the live presentations (look for this offering on the Ecovillage Education US website), the people joining us on Wednesday afternoons will get the greatest value, as they'll be able to pose their questions on the spot.
While I love working directly with people in the room, venturing into the electronic future seems inevitable. Not only does this give prospective clients a taste of who I am and what I can deliver, it bridges distance and eliminates commuting. What I'll be offering here is a small taste of the online instructional possibilities being offered by MOOCs: massive open online courses, where many people can get access to information inexpensively, and is already impacting university enrollment.
The difference in this case is that the number of webinar participants will be small enough that each can reasonably expect to get personal questions addressed. If this were being offered to 1000 people at once (in a real MOOC) that wouldn't be the case. While there's no question that being electronically connected is not the same as being in the same room, the exchange requires a much smaller investment of time and money and it's good to be experimenting with this medium. I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes and having some fun with it.
I hope some of you will join us on the 2nd.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
20 Qualities of Effective Cooperative Leaders
While offering a workshop on Power & Leadership in cooperative groups over the weekend, I was urging participants to take home the idea of making time to explicitly define what qualities constitute healthy models of leadership—so that members will know when they're operating in ways that people will support, rather than criticize.
When someone in the audience asked me to delineate the characteristics of a healthy leader, I balked, suggesting that groups already know the answers to this—if they just stopped and took the time to think about it—and that it would probably go better if each group generated their own list rather than relied on my suggestions (as the buy-in would be better).
While I still like my answer, I've changed my mind about sharing my thoughts. Thus, here's my offering of 20 desirable qualities in a cooperative leader (while you may not find all of them in a single individual, you're probably hoping to find most of them):
1. Ability to hear fully what others are saying. Note that this implies more than just getting the concepts right; it also involves getting the tone right, and the affect. Even more subtly, it implies being able to show others that what they've said has been fully heard. (Hint: it is often insufficient to merely assert that you've heard someone.)
2. Ability to hear critical feedback accurately and with minimal reactivity or defensiveness. This is a big one. Leaders who are poor at this teach their groups to not bother to attempt it, resulting in disgruntlement and undermined authority. If you're having trouble with the leader's behavior and they'll punish you for pointing it out, what options do you have? Not good.
3. Ability to respond with openness and curiosity when people disagree. This is about being able to resist the temptation to tense up in the face of divergence and to model excitement instead. (Hot dog, the group will have a range of perspectives to weigh in its deliberations!) The point of operating cooperatively is not to have everyone respond harmoniously; it's to have the richest possible stew of ideas to work with. Celebrate when you get it.
4. Ability to report authentically on their emotional state. One of the keys to effective leadership is coming across as real person. One of the keys to that is being able to share feelings in a way that's both accessible and believable.
5. Knows their weaknesses and doesn't try to bullshit others into thinking they're strong in places where they aren't. This is about knowing what you don't know, and not hiding it.
6. Models interest in learning. Leaders are often in the position of teaching others what they know. While that's good, it helps a lot of they're also interested in learning from others.
7. Fosters an environment of sharing the stage with others and passing on what they know if the group depends on that skill. Good leaders encourage others to grow into leadership. Part of this is teaching; part of it is getting out of the way; part of it is being gracious when others step up and letting them carry the moment.
8. Ability to appreciate the contributions of others. This is about sharing accolades, and making sure they are not too parsimoniously distributed. (Group members will be able to contain their enthusiasm for taking on leadership roles if it's all sulfur and no molasses. Good leaders know this and make sure that appreciation flows easily.)
9. Protects air time for other voices. This is a slightly different version of #7, focusing on making it a little safer and a little more welcome for everyone to add their $.02.
10. Discipline to use air time concisely and on topic. Leaders tend to lose social capital if they are unable to display terminal facility, or regularly invite the group to board cross-town buses to explore side traffic.
11. Functions well in chaos. It can be a contribution of no small dimension if a leader can trail blaze a path through dense woods, especially when others feel trapped in the trees.
12. Can function well when the stakes are high. It's another, analogous skill to be able to perform with grace under pressure. It's one thing to understand the theory of leadership; it's another to be able to think lucidly and act with nuance and effectiveness with the game on the line.
13. Can follow as a well as lead. In cooperative groups, it tends to be important that the same person is not always the leader. Thus, it follows that each person who is sometimes a leader, is also sometimes not a leader, and it won't go down well if that leader is not also a good follower on those occasions when they're not on leadership duty. (How can you ask others to respond well to you as a leader if you're not capable of modeling that when you're responding to others as leaders?)
14. Follows through on commitments. Every time you make a promise you don't keep, a little more air escapes from your credibility balloon.
15. Is willing to cheerfully do their share of the grunt work. A number of these qualities (#6, #7, #13) are versions of being able to show range. In this case, it's being willing to sweep the stage after the performance, not just being able to sweep people off their feet when performing on stage.
16. Laughs easily. This may seem a small thing, but grim leaders ain't that inspiring. Of course, if they're only laughing at their own jokes, that's not much of an improvement.
17. Doesn't act as a martyr. This means resisting the temptation to use their contributions—however unique and/or heroic—to pressure people (even subtly) into siding with what the leader wants and not valuing what others want just as much. The most insidious version of this involves the leader asking the group to support their requests because of all that they've sacrificed for the group—regardless of whether the group asked the leader to make those sacrifices.
18. Is able to function gracefully in the face of people reacting with partial information. This is a tricky one. Leaders often know more of the story than others in the group (some of which may be privileged, sensitive information) and it's not unusual for leaders to be criticized by group members who don't know the full story. While this is unfair, it goes with the territory. If you need to be loved all the time, think about getting a dog.
19. Comes across as human. This is a combo characteristic—admitting to failings and irritations (# 4, #5, #16) without attempting to gain leverage through their articulation (#17).
20. Is good at bridging divergent viewpoints. This is the ability to bridge between positions such that both parties feel heard and respected, illuminating a pathway of connection that might not have been visible to either side. It's the step beyond #3.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Follow the Leader
In September 2008 my wife, Ma'ikwe, and I were at East Lake Commons, a cohousing community in Atlanta to begin an important experiment. It was the first weekend (of eight) in a version of the two-year Integrative Facilitation Training Program that I pioneered in 2003. It was also the first weekend we had attempted to teach this course together. What was at stake was: a) whether we were an effective teaching team; b) whether we were were effective in this format; and c) whether teaching together would be good for our marriage. So the stakes were fairly high.
Though we billed ourselves as co-trainers, the experience (and therefore power) gradient between us in that context was very wide. Because by that time I had already taught this course in its entirety three times, in Atlanta Ma'ikwe was teaching her first session while I was teaching my 25th session. While we were highly motivated to figure out ways to make working together go well, one of our main challenges was figuring out how to close the power gap.
I'm happy to report that in three years we've made great progress in that regard and this blog is devoted to chronicling that journey, focusing mainly on what's happened over the course of the 17 training weekends we've conducted since that launch in Atlanta.
The Unlevel Playing Field
At the outset, we had a long way to go. Not only was it my program, I had many more years under my belt as a process consultant, all of the students in that class had been recruited by their exposure to my work and reputation, I am 20 years older than she, and the pace of the course was tailored to my speed and style:
o Most of the teaching happens on the fly in the context of preparing for, delivering, and debriefing live meetings for the host group. While Ma'ikwe and I can prepare presentations for a few hours Friday morning, all the rest of the weekend is keyed off of what the host group needs, which is out of our control and unscripted.
o Things happen quickly. While the trainers typically have the benefit of a conference call and perhaps some email dialog with representatives from the host group before we arrive on site (which supplies us with a general sense of where the live meetings will be headed), 90% of the prep work happens on the spot, often with only a few hours from start to show time. While meeting facilitators typically have much more time available in which to prepare (it's generally a very poor idea to start prepping for a meeting less than 24 hours beforehand, yet we face that as a steady diet during training weekends), we are teaching efficiency, the ability to focus on the essence of what's needed, flexibility, and trying to develop good instincts (not just good plans).
o Things are intense. Students learn (even more than they already suspected) that meetings are complex animals with many variables in play. As a group, the training class fills all the time available discussing those variables when planning for a live meeting, and the trainers need to simultaneously monitor that the student-facilitator is not overwhelmed (constricting the flow), and yet be as prepared as possible (expanding the flow). The trainers need to simultaneously protect the quality of the meeting for the host and the learning experience for the student, two objective that often coincide, though not always.
o We are on the job working with students, either as a group or individually, for about 30 hours from Friday morning through Sunday afternoon, and that requires stamina and skill at energy management. As trainers, we need to be "on" all the time. Where there are many stretches during a typical training weekend where students can zone out (or even go for a walk or take a nap), the trainers don't have that luxury.
The Theory of Leadership Development
One of the main teaching themes in this training (there are eight; one for each weekend) is Power and Leadership. One of the main points we make in that section is that leadership is needed in all groups (though it's not a particularly good idea that it be the same person all the time), yet cooperative groups tend to be weak in developing clear models of healthy leadership.
Lacking clarity, the default position is that cooperative groups tend to be suspicious of members who function as leaders (why are they drawn to the use of power?). In the pursuit of everyone having a voice and the widest distribution of power as possible (which are fine objectives), the tendency is to hamstring leaders to guard against abuse, with the result that equality is approximated through making everyone sufficiently weak.
We prefer a different approach: encouraging everyone who is less accomplished to get stronger.
We advise that groups explicitly define what qualities it wants in leaders and then create a culture that supports those qualities emerging. In our view, it's superior to celebrate strong leadership, so long as it's in alignment with the qualities identified as healthy. We believe that good leaders encourage the development of their replacements. While not everyone aspires to leadership (we discourage twisting arms or requiring that everyone take a turn in the barrel), you want the invitation to explore it to be as broad as possible—without any dilution of the standards.
In an attempt to walk our talk, this meant that Ma'ikwe and I would be endeavoring to encourage her star to rise without asking mine to set. While there is a theory of ascension that is predicated on the current leader abdicating and propelling their successor(s) forward in a vacuum (rising to the occasion), that was not what we were attempting. I had no intention of stepping back.
How It Looks to the Junior Partner
In our scheme for leadership development, most of the work falls to this person, who must step to the plate. That means taking the initiative to be more present. It means adapting to the format already in place, or making the case for change based on how it will serve the class—rather than just the junior partner's comfort level.
Partly this translated into Ma'ikwe developing her own teaching material (which she's done). She needed to be courageous about trusting her instincts about when to speak, and she's gotten there.
How It Looks to the Senior Partner
While empowerment is essentially the work of the person who wants to become more powerful, there is nonetheless work for the existing leader as well. Mostly it's about mindfulness.
This means monitoring the interplay when we're both in front of the class, making sure that the junior partner has entree (there are important, though sometimes subtle, differences among pushing, encouraging, allowing, and complicating). It entails a certain amount of pausing to see if Ma'ikwe is ready to go when we're both asked a question; it means occasionally deferring if I notice that both of us are ready to speak simultaneously; it amounts to discerning when what I have to say is sufficiently different to add it to what she's said and when it's better to simply let her answer stand alone.
It also means being gracious about dividing the air time, and giving her room to try new ideas. It means trying out my ideas with her, and not just expecting her to vet ideas with me.
In our scheme, I don't hold back on speaking when I think something needs to be said. In the overall pursuit of strengthening the course, I never hesitate to develop additional handouts whenever a new concept crystallizes for me. If she gets there first, great. If not, then I do it.
When we disagree about an approach, it's the responsibility of both of us to be respectful of the other, to be curious about the other's viewpoint. We both have to devote time to reviewing and talking with each other about our working relationship. Success in this attempt is not something that happens simply as a consequence of having the right mind set—it requires active attention and mid-course corrections.
A Work in Progress
For all of our advancement, there are still aspects of the program where our contributions remain grossly out of balance:
o I have authored 95% of the handouts. While Ma'ikwe is a talented writer (in fact, she has a book out, Passion as Big as a Planet) and has crafted some of the more recent handouts, I still write more than she does and there remains a large gap here.
o I draft all of the reports following each weekend (we produce individual ones for each student who does live facilitation with the host group, plus an overall report for the host).
o I continue to handle all of the accounting for the partnership, and the vast majority of the logistics for travel.
Friday, August 12, 2011
My Summer of Sustainability, Part VI
This is my sixth and final entry in a six-part series on sustainability.
Sometimes all roads seem to point in one direction. This summer I've been having that experience with the concept of sustainability: assessing where we are now, what will be possible in 30 years, and how do we get from here to there.
The basic premise I'm working with is that humans are rapidly exhausting our supply of accessible resources, such that something has to give. That is, it is not even remotely possible that we can continue for another generation the materialistic lifestyle we're become accustomed to in the US—unless we're willing to forcibly deny the equitable distribution of what's left and to tolerate massive suffering elsewhere in service to the status quo. Rather than continuing the charade that underlies the bumper sticker "How did our oil get under their sand?", I've started looking at two questions: a) How to create a vibrant, satisfying lifestyle that uses only 10% of the resources that the average American is currently consuming; and b) How to peacefully navigate the social challenges that such a massive shift will require.
These questions affect me both on the personal level (how will I live, and what am I called to do to help society to a softer landing in the decades ahead) and on the professional level (what role should FIC play in education and preparation; what is my role as a process consultant to better prepare groups to handle what's coming).
When thinking about sustainability, I like the metaphor of a three-legged stool: there's a ecological leg, a social leg, and an economic leg—and you won't have a very stable piece of furniture unless you have three stout legs. I am interested in what it takes to develop strong legs, and also the integration of the whole, so that the stool will be a tool.
As this is a big, all-encompassing topic, I'm going to tackle it in a six-part series, roughly in the order in which I've been bumping into this conversation over the past two months. Here's the outline:
I. Proposal to build a working model of sustainability
II. The Transition to a Sustainable and Just World by Ted Trainer
III. Sustainability and Cohousing
IV. EDE Course at Dancing Rabbit in 2012
V. Increasing sustainability offerings on campus
VI. Transition Towns
The articulation of this concept is fairly fresh—only about six years old. Like the name itself, what's happening under its banner is in transition. It's main premise is that there are two large challenges coming down the road that contemporary society is not particularly ready for: peak oil (psst! we're running out) and climate change (the ice cap is melting, and CO2 levels are spiraling dangerously upward).
The concept of transition towns arose out of the work of a Brit named Rob Hopkins, who in 2005 was a permaculture educator at Kinsale Further Education College in Ireland. His class developed a transition plan that was adopted that year by the local town as the Kinsale Energy Descent Action Plan.
Returning to England the next year, he took his thinking out of the classroom and established a prototype transition town in Totnes, a resort town of about 25,000 near Plymouth where he was working on his doctorate.
Based on the enthusiastic response to his work, Hopkins wrote The Transition Handbook in 2008. The subtitle is From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience. In an effort to expand into the US, in December 2008 the Transition Town leadership offered a 4-day train-the-trainers workshop in this country and 21 people participated. These are the folks now authorized to help transition towns get set up in the US.
At the moment there are 95 official Transition Towns in the US and 384 worldwide, and the movement is growing.
Understanding that this must be developed at the grass roots level (what else could local resiliency be based on?) the Transition US group has been careful to not be too directive, and to allow plenty of room for local shaping by each group. While laudable in one sense, this diffusion has also resulted in foggy guidance, leaving groups groping for the skills needed to succeed, or even ways to learn what others are doing and learning.
It's one thing to not dictate; it's another to not lead.
This is not an easy movement to connect with. Figuring that intentional communities in general—and FIC in particular—have expertise in collaborative processes and bringing disparate parties to the table together, we have on multiple occasions (including with two of the original 21 trained TT facilitators) offered to help develop the capacity to do the hard work. To date, however, not a single invitation has been answered.
I suspect there is no one in authority to accept our invitation, and our offers have gone unaddressed by default. (Of course another possibility is that no one in a position to accept understands its worth.) At one meeting with a local TT organizer, I was politely told that I might "better devote my time focusing in the Midwest, where people were not so advanced in group dynamics and might better use my help; out here on the West Coast we don't need that kind of assistance." Yikes! If only that were true.
It's one thing to encourage local resilience; it's another to encourage local resistance.
In my view, one of the most exciting aspects of the transition town blueprint is that it calls for all the stakeholders in a local area to sit down together and make common cause. The heavy lifting here is bringing together segments of the population who don't typically talk with one another, getting everyone to see the need to set aside petty squabbles to build together a workable future. We're talking about business people working it out with environmentalists; elected officials meeting with teachers; clergy getting together with local bar owners.
Even with a common goal—the ongoing viability of the local area—there will be wide disagreement about what that looks like or the best way to get there. As a culture, we are not used to managing these kinds of conversations well, and as far as I can tell most of the transition towns in the US have not yet gotten past preaching to the choir—where the people attending meetings are equally green when it comes to environmental values and political savvy. The real work will not begin until the disparate stakeholders are in the same room together.
I worry about the challenge ahead. While I think the transition town movement is a good initiative, I think the organizers are naive about what it will take to succeed. It's sobering, for example, to realize how much steady work I get trying to help cooperative groups untangle gridlock—and my client base is almost wholly comprised of groups with an explicit commitment to both diversity and cooperation. If I'm seeing that much curdle among the cream of the cooperative crop, how are we going to prevent the milk from souring when we don't have enough electricity to power our refrigerators?
Optimist that I am, I remain hopeful that the intentional communities movement will ultimately find a reasonable intersection with the TT initiatives, and that we can move together. In the tough times ahead, we'll need all the allies we can find in the effort to walk our sustainable talk.
Friday, August 27, 2010
The Dynamics of Living with a "Very Conscious Person"
Two weeks ago I attended the annual Twin Oaks Communities Conference, in Louisa VA. I'm a regular participant in this weekend event, where community seekers get together with dozens of representatives of existing or forming groups to swap stories, make connections, and generally get inspired about cooperative living. The energy is invariably positive and it provides me with a great excuse to renew acquaintances with folks I've been visiting since 1980. (Because Kat Kinkade's A Walden Two Experiment [recounting Twin Oaks' first five years] was a seminal inspiration for my seeking intentional community back in the murky, pre-internet days 1973, my annual pilgrimage to that longstanding community takes on some of the flavor of a haj for me.)
Among the things I did at the conference, I conducted a set of three workshops:
—Power Dynamics and Leadership in Cooperative Groups
—Conflict: Fight, Flight, or Opportunity?
—Should You Join a Community or Start One?
A few days ago I got this email from someone who attended the conflict workshop, which I've edited lightly (also, I've inserted clarifying comments in brackets):
I have an interesting dynamic that I was wondering if you have had previous experience with...
Basically, there is someone in my group who is a very conscious person (VCP). At your talk on "conflict," you had a graph and drew a red line on it. Above the red line is a person experiencing [non-trivial] emotional distress. VCP is most always below this red line. ["Above the red line distress" means that the emotional upset is sufficient for that person that there is substantial distortion in how they are handling information; "below the red line" means that distortion is minor and manageable.]
Another characteristic of this person is their incredible ability to refine, and see what is "wrong" in things, which they point out on a very consistent basis. This has made for a very interesting dynamic in our group.
The dynamic is that VCP will take every opportunity they can to bring things into light, and others in the group (including myself) have come to rely on that instead of bringing things into the light ourselves. We listen to VCP, and defer everything to them instead of making things our own.
This dynamic feels unhealthy and does not support us all in growth. It's my sense that friends that have known VCP for over 10 years have pretty much stayed where they are at in their development of consciousness… One woman has lived with him for over 10 years and actually chooses to be extremely unconscious, which observation has raised questions for me about this dynamic.
What do I feel needs to happen or change about this dynamic?
I feel it is part of VCP's very essence to be refining things, seeing what doesn’t work, and sharing their analysis with us all.
I feel this can play out in a couple ways. On the one hand, people can defer to VCP and give that person full authority and leadership for handling a situation—in which case no one else grows in their capacity; or VCP almost forces others to step up to a higher expression of themselves. If people choose to "flow/ work" along with VCP's energy, a very sustainable relationship can come of it.
This is what I believe is happening with myself in relation to VCP. I see our relationship as very sustainable, healthy, and unlike any relationship either of us have been in before. Although I do not choose to be as consistently conscious as this person, for some reason we still work together. Ironically, my ability and motivation to dive in deeper and critically examine how VCP interacts with the group is an example of how I've been positively affected by VCP's gift, and brings more light into my own process.
Although I feel we can all expand beyond where we are at and learn to transcend any dynamic, I fear there is a lack of incentive among others to look at this issue and strive to become more conscious.
Maybe it doesn't matter that people do not choose to be conscious—it is definitely that way in the mainstream society. I feel though that we would be more productive as a group if we all chose to step up to the plate and not wait for others to do it. When is society going to take some personal responsibility? For gosh sakes, when are we in communities going to really model this! Have you found a community where everyone is stepping up to the plate?
This is a very interesting dynamic, and I think there a number of things in play.
1. First, let's take it for granted that VCP is totally sincere in their motivation to identify how any given situation can be "refined" or improved, and that they've got ego issues under control (this may not be the case, but I'm setting that aside).
It seems to me there might be a useful group conversation about how much that gift is wanted in day-to-day of group deliberations.
The reason this is not a trivial question is because people's capacity to examine things at the level that VCP likes is probably uneven. (What's more, the same person may be variably open to the examination, depending on time of day, when they ate last, where they are in their menstrual cycle, etc.) No matter how well intended, unwelcome observations lead to increased tension more than increased illumination.
In my experience, how a "refining" comment lands often depends on delivery and how well the audience believes it is being offered in a respectful way. A key nuance here is the level of trust that has been built (or not built) between the observer and recipient prior to delivery of the observation. The same kind of comment offered in the same way may land entirely differently if there is a "disturbance in the Force."
One of the ways I characterize this foundational question is: How much do you want to be in each other's life by virtue of being a member of the group? Answers to this question can be all over the map, and many answers can work. The problem comes when members have fairly divergent answers and this has never been discussed or worked through. The corollary here is developing an acceptable and clear way by which members can indicate that another member has crossed (or is just about to cross) the border of what is acceptable in the way of inserting themselves into the other's life. If there is not a sense that that boundary will be respected, there will be trouble.
2. Second, let's assume you've successfully answered the questions above, and you're agreed that VCP's comments are within the acceptable range. If other group members have grown accustomed to relying on VCP's analysis and no longer exercise their own thinking about the issues, it's not fair blaming VCP. Why are people getting lazy? Now if the other members have learned to not give alternate views on a topic because VCP will fight over the analysis, that's another kettle of fish and there might be a useful conversation about how VCP can give opinions that leaves the door fully open for dissent. (Note that this can be subtle. While it's obvious that there's resistance to alternative viewpoints when the speaker starts yelling or openly denigrating anyone who disagrees with them, disapproval may show up in tone of voice, body language, or withdrawal of warmth—all of which can be equally effective in shutting down opposition, yet make it hard to discern cause and effect.)
If other members are just "mailing it in" then the group is probably not owning the work and your decisions will be weak. This is a group issue and should be discussed as such. To be clear, it's not so much a problem that VCP may be doing the lion's share of the talking, so long as there's plenty of room for everyone to speak and the group moves at a speed that works for all.
3. Third, there is a power and leadership issue here. VCP obviously has power based (at least in part) on their demonstrated ability to offer critical thinking about relevant issues. So far, so good. The question is how much the group wants to develop leadership among the other members (as opposed to just continuing to rely on VCP) and what role all parties, including VCP, can play in creating an environment the supports leadership development.
Embedded in this is the need to define what qualities characterize good leadership in your group, so that you have a definite idea what you're trying to foster. In general, I prefer that you aim to make everyone stronger, rather than trying to shackle those who are already strong. That said, if some group members experience VCP as intimidating (in addition to being insightful) that also needs to be discussed.
4. Finally, groups vary a lot on the question of how much there is an explicit commitment to developing member consciousness. In some cases, groups are organized around a common practice (or set of spiritual beliefs) to achieve that end, and acceptance of that path is a condition of membership. In other cases, the group may be committed to member consciousness while leaving it entirely up to each individual how they want to pursue that. In still other groups, there is no explicit commitment to personal growth of the development of consciousness; is is considered a personal matter outside the scope of group attention.
While I have personally witnessed many examples of people whose consciousness (and self-awareness) has grown tremendously over the course of their tenure with a group, I know of no group for whom all their members have this experience. So the results are uneven in this regard.
Last, I want to offer a word of caution about how you assess another's progress toward increased consciousness. Even assuming two people agree on the goal (which is not simple), there are many paths and it is not unusual for Person A to report deep change and satisfaction with how they are working with consciousness, and to have Person B—who is equally sincere and motivated to achieve the same goal—be indifferent and unaffected by Person A's approach. My sense is that this says nothing at all about efficacy of the paths chosen by Person A or Person B. They both could be successful and yet pursue their common goal by very different routes.
I will close with two suggestions for your group if you want to make an explicit commitment to foster the development of member consciousness: a) rather than focusing on what path will lead to higher consciousness, do what you can to identify what observable behaviors you are looking for from members as indicators of advanced consciousness; and b) be extremely cautious about interpreting the failure to behave in desired ways as evidence of a lack of consciousness—there are myriad more innocent explanations possible and spiritual judgment never lands lightly.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Touching the (Leadership) Void
The other day I got the following email from an intentional community for advice about how to fill leadership slots:
We [the Process Committee] just received an email from the Board President reminding us that we need to address the issue of future board leadership (several long term members are expected to drop off the Board next term). Do you have any advice for the community on this issue?
This topic—leadership in cooperative groups—is a terrific one, and I thought I'd share my response to this group.
There are a couple of angles on this.
1. The Board in Relationship to Community Governance
Like many communities, this one is structured as a condominium association and is legally required to have a governing Board of Directors. At the same time, the community has chosen to make its decisions by consensus, and these two systems of governance don't tend to play well together. When a group works by consensus, it's confusing to have a Board that's also doing real work for the group. It can lead to two governing bodies which make decisions by different methods (the Board votes and the community makes decisions by consensus). While it's possible to set it up so that the Board also makes decisions by consensus (which would be less confusing), there's still potential trouble whenever the Board comes to a different conclusion than the community would. Which prevails?
There's also the potential for awkwardness whenever there's overlapping aspects of responsibility. For example, I know communities where the Board handles financial and legal matters, while the community oversees social and membership matters. On paper it looks like a straight-forward division, but it's not hard to imagine issues that spill over into both spheres of influence. Suppose a member is behind in dues payments—which body will wrestle with the consequences? It can become a tangled mess in a blink.
I much prefer that the Board be titular only and do no real work. That is, have a party every year and have people throw darts or draw lots to determine who will be the President and Secretary (as those are probably the only two officers the law requires you to have), and then ask them to do no real work.
Instead, make the community be the Board, such that all community decisions are automatically Board decisions. That way, you have only one governing body. It's much cleaner.
So that's my rap on structure. I'm imagining that the urgency behind the Board President's request is that the Board does real work, and thus it's a relatively big deal that Board slots might go unfilled. Thus, even if you like my structural suggestion, that doesn't solve the problem of how to get important functions covered, and that brings me to my second angle...
2. Filling Leadership Roles
Regardless of what governance structure the community adopts, you'll need leaders. That is, people who will inspire, coordinate, take initiative, and manage things needing to get done. I'm assuming that the Board currently does real work and the President is properly concerned that there is a dearth of people willing to fill non-trivial slots.
In many cases, the only thing that leaders get in compensation for their efforts is the opportunity to serve—and for many, that's not worth the hassle.
This is a community issue, and I have two recommendations about how to turn this around:
a) Talk about power and leadership in the group
There needs to be community-wide buy-in with the concept that leaders are necessary, and you need to have a model of what healthy leadership looks like. Absent that, there will always be at least low-level grousing about what leaders do, as people project their past damage (and everyone has personal experience of leaders who abused their power) onto the current leaders.
I'll give you some hints about what this model will need to include:
o High standards for disclosure, so that the work of leaders is transparent.
o Careful selection of people who serve in positions of significant responsibility (don't just take the first person who puts their hand in the air). This includes job descriptions and an explicit naming of the characteristics wanted for the person filling that role.
o Periodic evaluation of leaders (which can serve both to clear the air and to celebrate their accomplishments).
o A culture where all members are encouraged to take on positions of leadership over the course of time. Note that I am not suggesting that all members be required to take on leadership; rather, I'm suggesting that the community encourages members to consider it (to diffuse the tendency to see those wiling to serve as the Leader Elite).
b) Incorporate appreciation of leaders into the regular culture of the community
I believe it's worthwhile for communities to establish a body—perhaps a Participation Committee—whose job it is (among other things) to help lead the cheers for contributions made by members to enhancing community life. The segment of the community that I am particularly focusing on here are the leaders and managers, who would receive this attention as a balm. Note that I am not suggesting that leaders should not be criticized—if someone does something wrong or takes an action that upsets someone, there has to be a known and protected pathway be which that can surface and be dealt with. The point I am trying to make here is that people doing important work for the group deserve recognition for their contributions and that making sure this happens will make a significant difference in terms of people being willing to take a turn.
There are three groups that should be able to help do this consistently and do it well:
—The Participation Committee (if you have one)
—The Process Committee (because they'll be on top of what leaders and mangers are doing)
—Former leaders (who have personal experience of what it's like to walk in those shoes)
While it may be obvious, I want to point out that it's inappropriate to expect leaders to take the lead on appreciating themselves—even if they know it should happen. Some other group in the community must handle that.
If you put all this in place, I think you'll have a lot better luck finding good people willing to step forward to fill slots.
