Tag Archive for: weekly read

Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People

/in /by

This week’s suggested read is one of my favourite books of the past year. Blindspot – Hidden Biases of Good People (2013) was written by Mahzarin Banaji of Harvard University and Anthony Greenwald of University of Washington to share their extensive research and learnings about “the hidden biases we all carry from a lifetime of exposure to cultural attitudes about age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, social class, sexuality, disability status, and nationality” – and what we can do about them. I am going to review this book in two communiqués. This week, I will describe the premise of the book and the importance of understanding biases, and encourage you to take an online (free) Implicit Association Test to prepare for next week’s issue. Next week, I will look more closely at what the authors suggest we can do about our blindspots.

The authors developed the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which helps reveal stereotypes or ‘blindspots’ in our ways of thinking about and perceiving ‘the other’. Having completed a number of them myself I can attest to the positively disruptive experience – as I became more aware of my own biases (and there were some that shocked me) I felt better equipped to begin to realign my thinking and behaviour with my intentions (e.g., to be an open-minded and empathic person, to be more culturally agile).

As the authors describe, we are social beings that, by evolutionary necessity, have formed social groups, and have developed an array of ways of defining our groups and characterizing other groups. We are also ‘meaning makers’ – as information comes in, we sift and sort this information into categories in order to make sense of it. These categories include value assessments such as good/bad; trustworthy/not trustworthy; smart/stupid, etc. In fact, we bring this need to belong in a social group and the need to make meaning together by trying to figure out what the members of our social group think about things and how they attribute meaning. Indeed, “other minds matter to us enough that regions of neural real estate are uniquely engaged for the purpose of making social meaning” (p. 13). What this means is that we are heavily influenced by what we think others in our social group/cultural environments think.

Biases are comprised of “bits of knowledge about social groups…[that are] stored in our brains because we encounter them so frequently in our cultural environments…[They] can influence our behaviour towards members of particular social groups, but we remain oblivious to their influence” (italics added, p. xiii). In other words, we think we know something about ourselves or others as truth/fact (e.g. “I am not racist”, “I embrace people who are different than me”), and yet our minds can (and do) operate at an unconscious level and we behave according to these hidden biases.

Banaji and Greenwald describe these as ‘social mindbugs’ that act unconsciously to influence our views and behaviour towards others. At their very worst, these mindbugs contribute to actions such as the murder of innocent people based on a perceived (internal) – but not actual – threat. But in the day-to-day, they operate in the construction of beliefs and judgments we make about others – the people we serve, the people we live with, and the people in our communities. “Understanding how mindbugs erode the coastline of rational thought, and ultimately the very possibility of a just society, requires understanding the mindbugs that are at the root of disparity between our inner minds and outward actions” (p. 20).

The authors speak about two minds – our reflective mind and our automatic mind. The reflective is our conscious mind and the one which drives what we say to the world (and ourselves), e.g. “I value and respect Aboriginal peoples”. The automatic mind however is “a stranger to us. We implicitly know something or feel a certain way, and often these thoughts and feelings are reflected in our actions too – the difference being that we can’t always explain these actions, and they are at times completely at odds with our conscious intentions…Our automatic preferences steer us towards less conscious decisions, but they are hard to explain because they remain impervious to the probes of conscious motivation” (p. 55).

However, we don’t need to be held captive by the automatic mind. If we can shed some light on the unconscious, implicit preferences and biases we hold, we can create a cognitive dissonance between our two minds and through this dislodge some of them. This is where the IAT comes into play.    

Practice opportunity: Go to https://implicit.harvard.edu and you can sign in as a guest or register and then will be given the opportunity to take a number of different tests. You’ll have a choice of seven tests as a Canadian (included are Weight, Age, Gender, Sexuality, Nation and Race IATs), but not before reading a disclaimer: “If you are unprepared to encounter interpretations that you might find objectionable, please do not proceed further.” This is an invitation into self awareness!

The Mission of Intergroup Relations

/in /by

Contributed by Tessa Charlesworth (tet2113@columbia.edu)

In our sector, group divisions – between government and community agencies, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and organizations, as well as between “modern” and “traditional” experiences – have been, and continue to be, sources of misunderstandings and prejudice. Such attitudes ultimately result in compromised services for children, youth, and families in BC. As such, one of the missions of Leadership 2020 is to help bridge these pervasive divides.

The approach employed by L2020 is grounded in both current and historical research on intergroup relations, stretching back to Gordon Allport’s “On the Nature of Prejudice” (1954). In this pivotal publication, Allport delineated the conditions that give rise to intergroup prejudice and conflict, as well as the conditions that give rise to the reconciliation of conflict and reduction of prejudice through positive contact. He suggested that, in order for two groups to rebuild their relationships, they must experience contact (i.e. proximity and interaction), that is supported by (1) a common goal; (2) cooperative interdependence to achieve that goal; and (3) support from authority.

Contemporary research has largely confirmed the benefit of these conditions in reducing prejudice and promoting reconciliation (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Indeed, research has shown that positive contact with these satisfied conditions reduces prejudice by (1) increasing awareness and knowledge of the “other”; (2) increasing empathy towards the “other”; and (3) decreasing anxiety and uncertainty surrounding the “other”.

In considering such research, it becomes clear that L2020 offers a unique platform for group reconciliation. At the most basic level, the program provides an opportunity for dialogue and contact (via both online platforms and in-person at residencies) between groups that may be otherwise disconnected. To ensure positive contact, the L2020 program also fulfills Allport’s three aforementioned conditions.

First, the program sets a common goal to all participants – to revolutionize and repair the sector so as to provide the best services possible. Additionally, each participant is encouraged to set a personal leadership development goal. Although private, these individual goals become a “common” pursuit as each participant is aware of the other participants’ similar struggles and challenges. Second, the program stresses the need for cooperative interdependence in order to achieve both the common goal, and each individual goal. As one example, the webinar check-ins serve as a source of communal support and interdependence for each participant to share their successes and failures and receive guidance from other members. Furthermore, the unique design of the residencies – with multiple group problem-solving and brain-storming activities – models the cooperative interdependence required for the communal goal of sector change. Third, the program provides substantial institutional and authority support, not only from the design team and facilitators, but also from the government and agencies that encourage their team members to participate.

In this way, the program design aligns with the pursuit of positive intergroup contact and reconciliation. However, the program is also unique in stressing the mechanisms (knowledge, empathy, and anxiety-reduction) that help in reconciliation. Specifically, L2020 targets intergroup knowledge growth by having participants share their experiences and knowledge through stories, as well as by promoting deep conversations and clarifying questions between groups. In a similar way, L2020 increases intergroup empathy by targeting the “humanization” of the other through such stories and personal sharing (again, the webinar check-ins provide a unique resource for empathic responding). Through the propagation of such knowledge and empathy, the program also targets the reduction of uncertainty and anxiety by making the other group more familiar through consistent, positive interactions.

This brief exposé on the intergroup goals of Leadership 2020 has shown how the program is firmly grounded in historical and contemporary research, as well as in application and experience. More importantly, however, it has shown that the program has immense potential in resolving the pervasive intergroup prejudices that hamper our sector and compromise our practice.

For further reading:

Allport, Gordon (1954) On the Nature of Prejudice.

Pettigrew, T. & Tropp, L. (2006) A Meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 90(5): 751-83.

Pittinsky, T. & Simon, S. (2007) Intergroup leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6): 586-605.

Reflective questions: How might this information apply to your work with ‘groups’ that are struggling to work together, e.g. between teams, agencies, disciplines, etc? How might the notion that intergroup relations will be enhanced through having constructive contact (time together), shared goals, tasks requiring cooperation, and ‘top cover’ support and encouragement? What are some small probes/actions that you could take towards improving relations and practice between these groups, e.g. between your team and another team?

Note: If you are curious about the field of intergroup relations and prejudice, Tessa welcomes comments and questions and is happy to share research and references. You may reach her via email at tet2113@columbia.edu.

Strategies for Learning from Failure

/in /by

11/26/2015 – I am taking a course on entrepreneurial behaviour and practices and one of our key seminars has been entirely focussed on failure – imagine 8 days to explore all facets of and relationships to failure, with people from diverse backgrounds, organizations and cultures from throughout the world! I have loved it as it has helped me uncover and explore my own definitions and fears about failure (lots) and exposed me to new ways of thinking about and embracing failure as part of strong and innovative practice. One of the articles we reviewed is by Amy Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at the Harvard Business School, entitled, Strategies for Learning From Failure (April 2011). I thought it was particularly beneficial and relevant to our sector. She noted that, despite being told that ‘innovation and failure is good’ many of us have been conditioned since childhood to avoid making a mistake and failing at all costs. This sets up a dynamic tension between what we are told is necessary in the workplace (e.g., think outside the box, innovate, test out new ideas, fail, learn) and what we have been told for most of our lives (e.g., don’t mess up).

She offers a more nuanced understanding of failure, that lines up well with the 2020 teachings on the Cynefin framework. With problems that are simple or complicated – what she calls predictable or knowable problems – failure should be preventable and avoidable and when it does show up it could be due to deviant behaviour (someone doesn’t want to follow accepted practices) but more likely due to inattention, lack of ability or training, process inadequacy or a task challenge (e.g. the task is simply too much to expect someone or a group to complete with the available resources). Leaders and managers need to act to prevent these types of failures.

On the other hand, when we face complex challenges where there is a high degree of uncertainty and we have not encountered the situation before, failures are often unavoidable – “system failure is a perpetual risk”. Our response should be one of trying to prevent more significant or “consequential” failures by attending to small process failures: “To consider them bad is not just a misunderstanding of how complex systems work; it is counterproductive. Avoiding consequential failures means rapidly identifying and correcting small failures.” She strongly encourages leaders to create an environment in which people can comfortably raise concerns and identify the small errors that can be addressed before the whole system is compromised

Edmondson also describes a third type of failure that occurs within the complex domain: “intelligent failures at the frontier”. I love this idea of intelligent failures – where experimentation is necessary and the “answers aren’t knowable in advance because this exact situation hasn’t been encountered before”. Here she suggests small-scale tests to see what might work and continual iteration and improvement – NOT large scale pilot projects! Failure here is “praiseworthy” as it serves learning and development.

Her description of “the blame game” was particularly relevant to our sector where, due to the high risks associated with some failures there is often intense media and public scrutiny aimed at placing blame on individuals or organizations. She would suggest that this generates a widespread lack of “psychological safety” that shuts down innovation and experimentation due to fear of failure – even when the risks are minimal or the benefits of new approaches could be significant. The five elements that Edmondson suggests leaders should cultivate in order to contribute to a psychologically safe environment that can prevent failure where appropriate, and be intelligent and learn from failures in the complex domain, include:

  • Frame the work accurately – what kinds of failures can be expected and how they will be worked through helps to ‘detoxify’ failure;
  • Embrace messengers of bad news, questions, concerns or mistakes;
  • Acknowledge limits – “be open about what you don’t know. Mistakes you have made, and what you can’t get done alone will encourage others to do the same”;
  • Invite participation – “ask for observations and ideas and create opportunities for people to detect and analyze failures and promote intelligent experiments. Inviting participation helps to defuse resistance and defensiveness”;
  • Set boundaries and hold people accountable.

You can gain access to the full article here: https://hbr.org/2011/04/strategies-for-learning-from-failure and signing into the Harvard Business Review. You can view online or get up to five free articles to download. The 12-minute interview with Amy is also available at this site and offers a good summary.

You may want to consider the following questions about ‘failure’:

  • What is your attitude or approach towards failure?
  • Are all failures equally ‘good’ or ‘bad’?
  • Where is a greater openness to failure and the consequent learning, needed in your own practice?

Impact: Six Patterns to Spread Your Social Impact

/in /by
Al Etmanski’s new book is Impact: Six Patterns to Spread Your Social Impact bring social innovation to life through stories and makes it accessible. He invites us in: social innovation “always begins with what you care deeply about” (p. 36). It “is the latest descriptor of the ageless human pursuit to make the world a better place. It is a bundle of new learning, technologies and methods blended with the best traditional approaches to social change” (p. 24). In this, I am reminded of Wedlidi’s wise teachings about bi-cultural practice and ways of being – bringing traditional and contemporary knowledge and practice together to meet the challenges of our time.
 
This reimagining and connecting is needed because, as Al goes on to say, “what is new is the recognition that many of our toughest social and environmental challenges have had time to develop deep roots that are resistant to just about anything we throw at them…If we are to be innovative about anything in the future, it must be about how we work together…as wise travellers. Social innovation spreads through sharing, not selfishness. The heroic, “great man” model of social change makes for a great story, but it isn’t true in practice. It is only through generous, respectful interactions across sectors, expertise and roles that social innovation achieves lasting impact” (pp.24-25, bold type mine). He goes on to quote my favourite definition of social innovation from Tim Broadhead, “social innovation is both a destination – the resolution of complex social and environmental challenges – and a journey – devising new approaches that engage all stakeholders, leveraging their competencies and creativity to design novel solutions” (p. 25).
 
I can’t do justice to Impact in this short post, but I do want to share the six interconnected patterns that Al illuminates in the book and focus on several that resonate for us in 2020:

  1. Think and act like a movement: “A movement is composed of a million small acts. It is impossible to predict which one will ignite a spark or cause the next surge. And it doesn’t really matter” (p. 48).Al notes five characteristics of progressive social movements and illustrates them with examples from diverse sectors. He suggests that they: ignite our imagination; are multi-generational; comprise small acts; are self-organizing; and marry art and justice (pp. 50-53). In this way, they are ‘messy’ and don’t lend themselves to the project plans and predictability that many of our systems love, which creates a tension that we need to manage skillfully. He invites us to discern what movements we are already a part of and “make our contribution, no matter how small or insignificant we think it is”(p. 58).
  2. Create a container for your content:  Make it easier “for people to do the right thing” by attending both to content and framing so that people can grasp what you see and feel. So often we turn people away from the discussion and the work by making our aims unclear or inaccessible. Al illuminates some more patterns of effective content containers. They: are playful and fun; are non-judgmental; ignite the imagination; personalize the abstract; and tell a story. How might we invite and share stories and ideas in a way that mobilizes and inspires people to act?
  3. Set the table for allies, adversaries and strangers: This one resonates most strongly with what we have tried to design into and convey in 2020, “changing the situation requires more than the usual suspects at the table. Dialogue and convening are more than means to an end. They give structure to our need to belong, to be part of something bigger than ourselves. They broaden understanding, puncture assumptions, change authority flows and allow us to cultivate new relationships. Solutions spread when we move beyond blame, competition, misunderstanding and mistrust” (p. 27). Al points out that working together on tough issues is no picnic at times – even when we work with friends. However, some of the qualities of effective convening that he notes do, in our experience, enhance the likelihood of connection. Civility, hospitality, and curiosity are key, as is personal agency: “Convenors strive to bring out the best in everyone. They convene around gifts… If convenors usually enter a room composed of leaders and followers, they hope to leave a room full of leaders, people who are emboldened and willing to take responsibility for what they say and do. Front-of-the-room leadership isn’t enough. Neither is leadership that suggests they will do it all for you” (p. 84). He notes that Paul Born (Tamarack) asks the following question in any gathering, “Why is it important that you are here?” as it invites people to be ‘doers’.
  4. Mobilize your economic power: This one is a harder pattern for me to get my head around and activate as I/we have grown up with a sector-wide scarcity mindset – scrambling for funds and support. There are 2 considerations here. The first is, what is the economic power of our constituencies that we might leverage? Certainly many of the people we serve have limited economic means, but when you consider the broader constituency of people working in the field, family members, social justice advocates, etc. we can have a stronger collective economic impact. The Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP), which Al was instrumental in establishing in Canada, is a case in point. The second idea is that social innovators are getting better at disrupting typical business models for their agencies or causes and are looking beyond government or grant funding and creating new partnerships with unlikely allies in order to spread innovation ideas.  
  5. Advocate with empathy: I have been strongly criticized in the past for not being harsh enough as an advocate, and this pattern spoke to what I have felt in my heart: Most people are doing the best they can within the system that they are operating within and if I can’t have empathy for their situation they may not be able to have empathy for mine. “Strategic inquiry is the process of discovering the priorities, language and tools of the group you are trying to convince” and being solution-focused as advocates (p. 116). It doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t “raise a little hell” as needed; lines in the sand are important; anger and outrage can fuel us. But if we accept the premise that we need to set the table for diverse perspectives, we can’t expect to be successful if we throw rocks and abdicate responsibility for finding solutions to government or others. 
  6. Who is important as how: One of the great takeaways from this book is the concept that the question ‘How?’ is a “killer question. It can stop you dead in your tracks. One way to undermine a new initiative or stop someone from pursuing a big idea is to ask them how they are going to do it. How dampens the imagination and favours being practical far too early…More cruelly, how can imply that because you don’t have the answer, there must be something wrong with you…” (pp. 135-136). The more generative question is ‘who?’ and invites us to think about who we can learn from and work with and what qualities the issue will benefit from. “Social innovation is enlightened by who we are – by character, not technique. The conviction of today’s social innovators arises from their emotional and spiritual maturity. They pay attention to what nourishes and replenishes their spirits. And they have the humility to admit their limitations and fears” (p. 28).
 
Al will be joining us for the 2020 social impact gathering and copies of his book will be provided to all participants.  

Forces for Good

/in /by

A note on terminology: The term ‘non-profit’ is familiar to us, but as someone who is curious about the impact of language, I wonder what the impact is of our field being defined in the negative? Terms such as ‘non-governmental organization’ (NGO) and ‘non-profit’ don’t tell people what our organizations stand for and what impact they have; they just define us as something that is ‘less than’ a for profit enterprise or government.  What is your reaction if we refer to such organizations as ‘social purpose’ or ‘citizen-centred’? While most of the relevant literature continues to use the term ‘non-profit’ I will use the term ‘social purpose’ where appropriate.

The literature that is specific to the non-profit/social purpose sector is extremely limited compared to the bounty of books, articles, journals and resources specific to the business sector. Nonetheless, there are some valuable references out there, one of which is: Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High Impact Nonprofits  (2007) by Leslie Critchfield and Heather McLeod Grant. The authors have strong pedigrees in the social purpose field, and their 4 years of research was supported by the Ashoka Foundation and the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University, which speaks to the integrity of the work. The limitations are that it is very US-centric, focuses more on larger-scale agencies, and of course the world has changed significantly since 2007. I cringed at some of the references made to collaborative partnerships between the featured organizations and businesses (e.g. with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac offering sub-prime mortgages to low income families). Nonetheless, there are some useful concepts embedded in the text.

They analyzed thousands of social purpose organizations, interviewed the leaders in hundreds and did in-depth investigations into 12.  They debunked a number of myths and discovered six recurring patterns in high impact organizations, including that they:    

  1. Both serve people and advocate for better public policies. Most started doing one or the other but realized that these 2 roles are interdependent. As providers of direct service they learned more intimately what was needed and why, and they built grassroots support, a strong evidence base, and credibility, such that when they went to advocate for public policy or funding shifts they brought strategic expertise to the decision-makers.
  2. Leverage market forces to achieve social change on a larger scale – including influencing business practices, building partnerships with business, and developing social enterprises to generate new revenue streams.
  3. Use volunteers well – not just as free labour but as advisors, story-tellers and ‘evangelists’ that advance the cause.
  4. Nurture nonprofit networks and help other social purpose groups succeed.  In so doing they advance the field – which also serves their interests. They don’t just pay lip service to collaboration, they ‘live it’. They freely share resources, knowledge and expertise to build alliances and connections that raise everyone involved – and the quality of their services – up.
  5. Master the art of adaptation by being attentive to the constantly shifting context, and being willing to try new approaches – and fail and learn. “They have mastered the ability to listen, learn and modify their approach based on external cues – allowing them to sustain their impact and stay relevant” (p 22). They are constantly moving and sensing the need for new directions. They are willing to stop doing things to make room for new approaches.
  6. Share leadership – there is no room for ‘outsize egos’ in the senior leadership roles in high impact organizations. Leadership is distributed throughout the organization and networks. “They cultivate strong second-in-command, build enduring executive teams with long tenure, and develop highly engaged boards in order to have more impact” (p. 22).

The authors note that these practices are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. For example, in fostering strong social purpose networks, connecting well with volunteers, and sharing leadership with Boards, they build a foundation for greater influence on public policies, and are thus more effective advocates.
 
All of these patterns are relevant to leaders in contemporary social purpose organizations, but two were of particular interest to our work in Leadership 2020: nurturing networks, and mastering the art of adaptation. High-impact nonprofits – and leaders – nurture a “network mindset”. They don’t see others as competitors for scarce resources but rather as potential allies. “They understand that only by working collaboratively with like-minded allies can they have more impact” (p. 126). They aim to build the larger field by freely sharing knowledge and ‘growing the pie’ by advocating for enhanced public policies and investments in the social sector whether or not their organization will directly benefit. This is messy work when we bring together different personalities, mandates, histories and priorities, but when we do find common ground and a platform for working strongly together we can become a force that can’t be ignored.
 
With respect to mastering the art of adaptation, much has been written recently about social innovation and impact. However the patterns noted by the authors are still relevant. They suggest that great nonprofits:

  • Constantly adapt and modify their approaches
  • Find the balance between stifling bureaucracy and unbridled creativity
  • Master each step of the cycle of adaptation including: listening, experimenting and innovating, evaluating and learning, modifying and enhancing
  • Pay close attention to the tough and tedious tasks of implementation

What is interesting to me about this enduring pattern is that over the past decade we have talked a lot about the need for innovation in government and the social purpose sector, while simultaneously experiencing an increasingly ‘risk adverse’ and stifling climate that is reluctant to change. Many of the featured social purpose organizations have chosen to develop creative solutions outside of their primary, government-funded contracts and then brought them forward to their funders. But what would it take for us to work differently and collaboratively in the ‘spaces between’ our social purpose and government ministries to develop and test new ideas and solutions for those issues that continue to challenge us? In the next communiqué I will share insights from Al Etmanski’s wonderful new book on Social Impact.
 

Unsettling the Settler Within

/in /by

Inspired by the TRC report and my desire to live and act in ways that support reconciliation, I re-read Unsettling the Settler Within – Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling and Reconciliation in Canada (2010) by Paulette Regan. The author was an Indian Residential School (IRS) claims resolution manager for the federal government, then the Director of Research for the TRC.  She completed her PhD in the Indigenous Governance Program at University of Victoria and this book is based on her dissertation.
 
As a non-Indigenous woman, Paulette asks, “How can we, as non-Indigenous people, unsettle ourselves to name and then transform the settler – the colonizer who lurks within – not just in words but by our actions, as we confront the history of colonization, violence, racism and injustice that remains part of the IRS legacy today?” (p.11). She suggests that, “In the seismic wake of destruction left by the public policy experiment that was the Indian residential schools, Indigenous communities struggle with poverty, poor health and education outcomes, economic disadvantage, domestic violence, abuse, addiction and high rates of youth suicide. It is easy from the apparent safety of our relatively comfortable lives, to judge the apparent inability of Native people to rise above such conditions, thus pathologizing the victims of our well-intended actions. It is equally easy to think that we know what is best for them – hence our persistence in trying to solve the Indian problem. This singular focus on the Other blinds us from seeing how settler history, myth, and identity have shaped and continue to shape our attitudes in highly problematic ways. It prevents us from acknowledging our own need to decolonize.” (italics added, p. 10-11).
 
This book is one settler’s “call to action” that requires us to start with self and “risk interacting differently with Indigenous people – with vulnerability, humility, and a willingness to stay in the decolonizing struggle of our own discomfort” (p. 13). What I appreciate about this informative and provocative book is that Paulette weaves together a critical and scholarly analysis of colonization, reconciliation and decolonization, with historical information and human stories that enable us to see and understand an alternative story about Canadian history. The stories offered in this book and in the TRC report could be some of our most powerful teachings – they are an invitation to confront and shift our own attitudes and actions.
 
Paulette also shares her own journey towards de-colonization. In sharing her journey, I could more easily (an uncomfortably) see the settler and colonizer within me. As she says, “I find myself recounting all the reasons that I am not a colonizer: I am working for social justice and change from within my own dominant-culture institutions; I am enlightened and empathetic; my intentions are good; I am committed to finding just solutions to these claims; I have Indigenous colleagues and friends; I grew up in a single-parent, low-income family in an ethnically diverse East Vancouver neighbourhood; I am not one of those white upper- or middle-class people raised in insular privilege! But I also know that…no one came to my home as a matter of government policy or religious imperative to remove me from my mother’s care. My fair skin and colouring protected me from racism…So I now find myself in the uncomfortable position of being a Euro-Canadian woman trying to figure out what it means to bear this unwanted identity of colonizer, oppressor, and perpetrator while attempting to do my work in a way that is congruent with my own principles, beliefs, and sense of integrity.” (p. 171-172). Wow – that one hit home for me!
 
She also offers a view of reconciliation as an “intercultural encounter” that integrates traditional story-telling and ceremony within a contemporary context. In this way I am reminded of the work that Wedlidi Speck is doing with Leadership 2020 participants on  “cultural agility”. 
 
One of the immediate takeaways for me was her description of settlers as “ethical witnesses” where the stories of human rights violations and trauma “invite an ethical response”. This is grounded in bearing witness, and deeply and respectfully listening to the stories such that this “giving and receiving of painful stories can restore human dignity” (p. 173). She goes on to say, “As Indigenous peoples restore their own sense of human dignity as self-determining groups, settlers must recognize and respect that inherent dignity…” (p. 177). Lots to work with and think about as I continue the journey.
 
For a briefer call to action, I encourage you to read Chris Corrigan’s blog post entitled Reconciliation – A practical guide for non-indigenous people. 

Working With and Through Conflict

/in /by

As mentioned last week, I have been thinking about how we might share with each other the gems we are gathering from our readings and our experiences. Here is how you can contribute:

  • Recommend resources, websites, TED or YouTube talks, speakers or books.
  • Share a review of or highlights from a book or resource.
  • Pose a challenge to other 2020ers to help you find a great resource, website, book, etc. that will benefit your leadership practice (and which will undoubtedly benefit others also).
This week, I have been inspired by the Blended 3 and 4 cohorts’ conversations on working with and through conflict. We welcomed mediator Anne Marie Daniel for several sessions, and what I appreciated is that she unpacked conflict – and our reactions to it – and took us back to some vital truths about conflict and resolution. Here is my version of the key ideas, followed up with some useful references if you are ready to get better at working through conflict.

Understanding is not the same as agreeing
By seeking to understand what is going on for the other person or party, we gain knowledge and perspective that can help us move from fear, anger, resistance, etc. to a place of openness and creativity. Instead of feeling that we have to keep putting our points, needs and demands forward (or just give up) we can take a step back and try and figure out what is going on for the others involved. This doesn’t mean we are agreeing with their perspective – just aiming to understand. This act in itself can diffuse a lot of conflict.

Separate impact and intention 
When we feel negatively impacted by a situation, we often believe that the other party intended to cause this harm. We attribute negative intent to them and act from that uncomfortable place of being the wronged party. In many cases, people have no intention to cause harm and are surprised to learn of the impact that they have. To avoid escalating misunderstanding it is helpful to go through a few steps with ourselves, before responding: isolate the facts of the story (not the enhanced version of events that our minds create), look critically at the impact the situation has on you, consider what the other person’s intentions might have been, look at what your own intentions were/are, and how your behaviour might have contributed to the situation. Doing this can be quite humbling, and it also gets our pre-frontal cortex (our rational and creative mind) back online so we can separate from the emotional reaction and respond in a way that increases the likelihood of success.

There is a difference between want and need – focus on the needs 
In conflict situations people may provide a list of what they want, take positions, make threats, or aim for the quick fixes, e.g. “I want you to stop doing that now or I will refuse to participate.” By focusing on needs and interests – what underlies the expressed wants – you can open up other possibilities for solutions. For example, perhaps the person demanding that you stop doing something might be needing some recognition of and support for what they are already doing before adding anything further. By focusing on what their interests and concerns are you can trim away the ‘noise’ and come to the core needs. The desire for respect, recognition, understanding and appreciation are core needs that often get clouded over by demands and ‘wants’. Hint: if you think that you have resolved an issue only to find it re-surfacing again, it is quite likely that you and the other party were addressing the surface ‘wants’ rather than the underlying ‘needs’.

Look for shared goals  
“How can we meet (what you need) while making sure that (what I need) happens?”
This is not about compromise (where both parties go away with less than what they desired) but about creating something that works well for both parties.

Some of the best references on working with and through conflict were written in the 1980’s by professors at Harvard University Law School and the Harvard Negotiation Project (HNP). Although the focus was on tough negotiations, they are highly still relevant resources on conflict resolution and principle-based negotiation. Getting to Yes –Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (1981) by Roger Fisher and William Ury was the first in the series. This was followed by Getting Together – Building Relationships As We Negotiate (1988) by Roger Fisher and Scott Brown, Getting Past No – Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation (1991) by William Ury, Getting Ready to Negotiate – The Getting to Yes Workbook (1995) by Roger Fisher and Danny Ertel, and Beyond reason – Using Emotions as You Negotiate (2005) by Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro. The two I refer to most are described below.
 
Getting to Yes was the groundbreaking book on principle-based negotiation, and it offers a commonsense approach to address conflicts and other matters where the parties are not in agreement. This includes: separating people from the problems; focusing on interests, not positions; discovering mutually acceptable options; and figuring out objective criteria to ensure fairness. I also like that they address situations in which you have less power in a situation, and how you can still have influence.
 
Getting Together expands on Getting to Yes and challenges the view that some relationships are just destined to be ‘bad’. Their premise is that “although it takes two to have a relationship, it takes only one to change its quality.” Their goal is to help us build relationships that “can deal well with differences” and be constructive. They suggest 7 elements:
  1. Rationality: Balancing emotions with reason
  2. Understanding: Learning how they see things
  3. Communication: Listening and consulting before deciding
  4. Reliability: Being wholly trustworthy, but not wholly trusting
  5. Persuasion not coercion: Negotiating side by side
  6. Acceptance: Dealing seriously with those with whom we differ
  7. Congruence: Putting it together
You can get some free reports from the HNP that are well done, especially the one on Dealing With Difficult People and Dispute Resolution.

Give and Take

/in /by

This week I want to share 2 references: Give and Take (2013) by Adam Grant, PhD and the classic parable, The Alchemist (1993) by Paulo Coelho.
 
Organizational psychologist and business professor Adam Grant wrote Give and Take to challenge the pervasive contemporary thinking that people achieve success by being aggressive, individualistic, charismatic, hard-driving, exceptionally talented and occasionally just plain lucky. Instead, he suggests that in our increasingly complex and interdependent world, our success depends on how we interact with others.
 
He draws on extensive research and suggests that there are generally three ways of being in relationships: taker, matcher and giver. The assumption has been that the dominant ‘takers’ will step on others and rise to the top and the ‘givers’ will be the ones at the bottom of the heap, content to serve selflessly. The ‘tit for tat’ matchers lie somewhere in the middle. Adam points to research that, at first glance, confirms this assumption. In a number of fields and professions, people that are high givers tend not to do as well at school, and in the workplace. They have difficulty getting all the work done as they are busy giving to and caring for others.  These are the ‘selfless givers’ who often become exhausted and unappreciated. So is it the takers or matchers that achieve more success? Neither – it is the givers who demonstrate both high concern for others AND high concern for self – what he calls the ‘otherish givers’. 
 
These people have self-preservation instincts. They give happily, lovingly and without conditions but are also selective – working on matters of significant importance and concern to them that are aligned with their ‘calling’, building strong networks, but also recognizing when to step away and do something restorative. These people are exceptional at connecting people and ideas, collaborating, influencing and giving credit to others. They favour ‘powerless communications’ instead of ‘power-over communications’. They may toil for some time without overt recognition but their many ‘weak ties’ with people that have benefited from their kindnesses and contributions enable them to be more nimble and adaptive as their approach encourages others to offer what they can when needed.   
 
Adam’s perspective on how to be an authentic and loving ‘giver’ that doesn’t get depleted was intriguing to me as I see so many of us in this field burning out – or getting burned – by the seemingly endless demands on our time, resources and energy. What can we learn about resilience from Adam’s research? Otherish givers have a clear cause, they derive genuine satisfaction from helping others, they act in ways that builds trust which inspires others to offer what they can, they are not afraid to ask for help, they give credit to others, they build up ‘reserves’ of happiness and meaning that they can draw on when the pain or sadness of the work wears them down. Adam offers suggestions about how to practice and nurture otherish giving. 
 
There is a lot more that I may say about the book in the future as it is full of stories that shed light on the qualities of givers, how to be a giver while staying whole and strong, and how to overcome our bias that gets in the way of us clearly seeing what others contribute.
 
By contrast, The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho is a simple, sweet classic that fits well with the topic of Elango’s work. This ‘hero’s journey’ story follows a Spanish shepherd that pursues his dream/calling – or ‘personal legend’ – and discovers much about himself and his purpose in the world.