|
|
Close Page to return to previous page |
|
The
Partnership Organization
As many business leaders and consultants point out, in this new world, the old stand-bys of order, control, prediction, and clearly defined tasks are less reliable. In the old machine model of industry, beyond simply operating in the assembly line-like reliable machine-like parts, the only demand made of workers was obedience. In the new world, we speak of pro-active, “empowered” workers, “knowledge workers” who add value by being change-agents. But even as the world around us is changing, with clear effects on the economy and the workplace, we have to ask ourselves whether we like where it’s going. Is there a vision of what a more desirable world might look like? Can we think about this process differently, so that rather than merely “adapt” to what we think is happening in the world, we can actually co-create it in ways that reflect our values, hopes, and aspirations? THE
PARTNERSHIP/DOMINATOR TEMPLATE
The old organizational model of the “well-oiled machine” represented the mechanical, clockwork universe that we associate with the Industrial Age. But this mechanical universe was about more than just machines. It was also a universe patterned after the dominator model. It was a universe in which the men at the top of the organizational hierarchy dominated those below them, men dominated women, fear was the major motivator for workers, and industrial machines were essentially war machines designed to do “battle” with the competition. Like the foot soldiers of the pre-industrial age, the majority of workers were expected to use their bodies to do whatever they were ordered to do. They were not supposed to think, much less change the orders they received in any way. And there was no place for stereotypically feminine values such as caring and nurturance. Today, this “command-and-control” model is not only inappropriate; it is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. Bureaucratic rigidity is deadly for organizations that wish to navigate successfully in a rapidly changing environment where innovation and flexibility are key factors. Furthermore, today’s citizens of a democratic country cannot (and should not) be treated in ways that reduce them to being cogs in a machine. The shift to partnership systems is essential if we are to bring about the changes in organizations and society at large needed for the 21st century. There will inevitably be changes. But unless we address the overarching values and organizational framework, there will be no systemic change in the direction needed. There will continue to be talk about a shift from rigid hierarchies to more flexible heterarchies. But even the flattest organization will still be racked by dominator power games in which individuals vie to “be on top.” Unless a viable alternative to the framework of domination can be articulated and applied, there will be no shift towards an alternative mindset and alternative behaviors. TOWARDS
PARTNERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS 1)
Flatter, less rigid hierarchical organizations. However, and this is a critical point about the partnership model that we have repeatedly emphasized in consulting for business and government, the change towards flatter organizations should not lead us to believe that hierarchy itself is outdated or only found in dominator systems, and that we should now completely abolish hierarchies of any kind. We have to be careful not to engage in oppositional thinking, and immediately reject any concept or practice associated with the dominator system in favor of its exact opposite. As noted earlier, Eisler specifically differentiates between hierarchies of domination, which are driven by the desire to control and oppress, and hierarchies of actualization, which support a greater unfolding of potential. 2)
Change in the role of manager, from “the cop” to a facilitator,
supportive role. In the partnership model’s hierarchies of actualization rather than domination, the manager’s role is to bring out the best in everyone, to help workers develop their potentials. This requires a willingness to mentor, to be supportive as well as task-oriented — and to learn as well as teach, creating a mutual learning loop. Instead of micro managing every step of the process, in partnership management we can speak of outcome-based management. A manager can explain what the desired outcome is, and support her or his team in achieving that outcome in whatever way works best for them. Teams and individuals can develop new and innovative, or simply efficient and convenient, ways of performing their tasks. This approach to management makes it possible to function in our rapidly changing world. Even more significantly, it leads to much greater creativity. Moreover, it leads to a reconceptualization of the nature of power, responsibility, and authority. 3) From
Power Over to Power To/With. 4)
Teamwork. But the current emphasis on teamwork cannot be reconciled with intra-organizational competition between departments, an endemic problem in organizations. If efforts at creating successful teams are not accompanied by a shift from a dominator to a partnership way of relating, most efforts will in fact be doomed. Working in teams requires great attention to the nature and quality of our relationships as well as a focused task-orientation. Our social system has historically educated men to focus on tasks and socialized women to be much more sensitive to issues of relationship, and to value their importance. In a gender-holistic, partnership organization, both women and men learn to do both, thereby paying the necessary attention to such “intangible,” “non-quantifiable” concerns as feelings, trust, and other stereotypically “feminine” concerns (cf.Moss Kanter, 1993; Rosener, 1995). 5)
Diversity From a dominator perspective, diversity is a threat to the order. But from a partnership perspective, diversity is an opportunity for greater creativity, for sharing new perspectives, creating new ideas and relationships, and presents possibilities for unusual and generative cross-pollinations. At a more subtle level, the implications of the growing presence of white women and people of color are even more profound. It requires a rethinking of what the real needs, desires, and capacities of workers are. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the problems faced by women in the workforce, since it is clear that organizations were not designed with them in mind. Flex-work, job-sharing, childcare, and parental leave are some of the results of women’s increased entry into the workforce. But these matters directly impact both men and women. They also directly impact children — and our future. They call for the redesign of organizations to meet human needs — which will in turn also meet the need of providing the high quality capital needed for the postindustrial economy — a capital that is largely shaped from both psychology and neuroscience, by the quality of care children receive. 6)
Gender-balance This distinction is highly significant for organizational development and management. Research shows that individuals who are not trapped in rigid stereotypical gender roles tend to be more flexible and psychologically healthy. They also tend to find it easier to work with others in teams rather than merely assuming positions in rigid rank orderings, to play management roles that are inspiring and facilitating rather than intimidating, and to be innovative and creative. 7)
Creativity and Entrepreneurship In dominator systems, there is an ambiguous relationship with creativity: it is viewed a great gift, and at the same time potentially enormously disruptive, a threat to the established order. In partnership systems, creativity is both highly valued and rewarded. While partnership creativity does not exclude dramatic creative changes, it also fosters creative relationships and creative approaches to everyday problems. Partnership creativity includes social, collaborative creativity, not just something reserved for the occasional lone genius (Montuori & Purser1995, 1999). We can let go of the idea that creativity only occurs in the rarified domains of the arts and sciences, and apply it where it is perhaps most needed: towards finding alternatives to domination, and the creation of partnership systems. A systemic, partnership approach to creativity points us beyond an exclusive focus on the “big bang” of product innovation, and towards the ongoing process of “everyday creativity.” This means making creative thinking and behavior a part of our daily lives, and infusing every aspect of the organization with creativity to foster continuous improvement and quality — new managerial practices, new rewards, new educational processes, new organizational charts, and so forth.. It is a creativity that can also express itself where women have traditionally been allowed most room to develop, in the area of relationships. It can be channeled into overcoming “office politics.” And it can be directed to addressing the challenge outlined above: the “conversion” from domination to partnership, creating new and better systems and a better world. Systems theorists have shown the importance of viewing the world in terms of systems within systems, and therefore the importance of the context within which any system operates. In dominator business organizations, the social and natural environment have not been considered (Purser, Park, & Montuori 1995). Nature, as well as human being were viewed almost exclusively as resources to be exploited. This has had negative consequences for nature and the vast majority of women, men, and children. But in our time, this dominator way of doing business is not sustainable. Systems thinking — and specifically thinking in terms of partnership systems — is not only necessary for long term business survival, but potentially for human survival (Eisler 1994,1995, 1998; Montuori 1998). What if organizations were to be designed with systemic, and life-enhancing, partnership principles in mind? This would indeed require a fundamental shift in the way we think about, and design, organizations. Above all, it would require the kind of creativity that is nurtured and supported by the partnership model: the vast and largely untapped reservoir of social creativity and social entrepreneurship. SOME
POINTERS TO PARTNERSHIP IN PRACTICE Mental
Traps We invite participants to challenge their own assumptions and explore their thinking not only about the Dominator system, but also about the Partnership system, because as we have seen, sometimes it is hard to see into the real-life implications of Partnership if we’re stuck in a polarizing Dominator logic. Some basic and common misconceptions include: Myth:
Its a dog-eat-dog world, and there’ s nothing we can do
about. Myth:
There is no hierarchy in the partnership organization. Myth:
Partnership is just working together, it means alliances, or
collaboration. Myth:
In partnership everything is done by consensus. Myth:
In partnership there is no conflict, no differences. Behavioral
Patterns Many people assume that creating partnership organizations requires huge transformations, changes in leadership and massive amounts of “consciousness-raising,” perhaps. This can initially be quite discouraging. No organization will orient completely to the partnership or dominator model. It is always a matter of degree. Our research shows that although it is important to focus on the macro-dimension of organizational change, which we address extensively in our forthcoming book, there is also a micro-dimension, and that this “everyday” world of interactions is not only a crucial place to create partnership, but it is in fact where we live! In other words, the day-to-day interactions at work are exactly what we need to focus on most, because our work life is made up of just that-day-to-day interaction with co-workers, subordinates, clients, and so on. Keeping the macro-picture in mind, including global context, and structural and systemic issues, and remaining aware of the basic difference between the Dominator and Partnership difference while working on micro-activities is a form of thinking globally and acting locally. In order to show people that partnership can start here and now, we ask people to think about and make a list of a dozen or so small workplace experiences that are examples of partnership versus dominator behaviors. One way to do this is by having people list “random acts of kindness,” and “random acts of unkindness.” These are purposely small and almost insignificant events and behaviors- ranging from a smile to a kind word to being brushed off or treated with subtle disrespect at a meeting. They can be behaviors associated with the example used for Best Workplace Experiences. What were people doing, specifically? Not doing? How were they relating to each other? How did it make you feel? We encourage people to think about how these kinds of “micro-behaviors” make a huge difference in our day to day experience. Our point is that these behaviors are not random, in one important sense. They either prop up the dominator system, or help create partnership. We also encourage people to pay more attention to these behaviors in themselves and in others-to acknowledge behavior of others that they find conducive to partnership—and to engage in more themselves. Most people are very surprised to find the extent to which small behaviors make a big difference. Although the prospect of creating a Partnership organization may appear daunting at first, it’s actually easy to make the first step, and to draw on our reservoir of positive experiences to spread more of them around. The great psychologist Abraham Maslow (1998) used to say that when he would discuss peak experiences with his students, they all spontaneously started having more, simply because they focused their attention on them. This is a very interesting comment, because it suggests that most of the time our minds are simply not open to considering peak experiences, and our attention is focused on that which pulls us away from them. In the same way, through the media focus on violence and certain forms of gossiping and patterns of attention, we tend to focus more on Dominator- like behavior than on recognizing (and reciprocating) Partnership-like behavior. Beginning to recognize and acknowledge Partnership in ourselves and in others, and finding creative alternatives for Dominator thinking and behaviors is a first step towards building a Partnership organization. REFERENCES |
|
OVER
JUST ONE generation, there have been many changes in organizational
development, management, and consulting. These changes have not
occurred in a vacuum. Along with scientific and technological
advances, there are major social, economic, and environmental
pressures for change. Different terms have been used to describe
this change: from modernity to postmodernity, from the Industrial to
the Information age, from the Machine to the Systems age. But there
is little question that we are rapidly shifting toward a very
different world. 
Eisler
(1987, 1995, 1997, Eisler & Loye 1998) have addressed these
issues by identifying two contrasting models of social systems: the
Dominator Model and the Partnership Model. Dominator systems are
fear-based, characterized by rigid hierarchies of domination (where
power is equated with giving orders that must be obeyed), an ethos
of conquest (including the “conquest of nature”), a high degree
of institutionalized or built-in violence, male domination, and
contempt for “soft” or stereotypically feminine values.
Partnership systems are trust-based, and characterized by
equalitarianism and “flatter” organization, flexible hierarchies
of actualization (where power is guided by values such as caring and
caretaking), by a naturebased spirituality, a low degree of violence
built into the system, and gender equality and equity. 
An important aspect of the partnership model is the
reconceptualization of power from Power Over — the power to
control and dominate others and our environment — to Power With
and Power To; in other words, the capacity to work to achieve goals
with others, but not at the expense of others. This is a shift from
domination to co-creation, or from coercive power to generative
power. Power-over is designed to either work one’s way up the
hierarchy of domination or to fend off contenders. It is the single
most important contributor to that vast, unspoken shadow that hangs
over all organizations: office politics. In a dominator system, most
political relationships are viewed in terms of the acquisition of
power-over. In partnership systems, the orientation to “
power to” or actualizing power and “power-with” leads to a
very different attitude, one that starts off by asking, “how can
we best work together to solve problems?” 
Creating
a partnership organization requires a deep re-organization of our
beliefs about what it means to work together. Challenging
assumptions is a key ingredient of the creative process, and the
Partnership process is in fact a creative process, a creative
challenge to draw on all our resources. Along with our own and
others’ fundamental assumptions, we also explore the very way we
think. We have found that Dominator thinking is polarizing thinking.
It leads to the kind of thinking that does not allow for
possibilities beyond either/or and all/nothing. Polarizing blocks us
from exploring possibilities beyond black or white, and prevents us
from making creative changes.