If our objective is egalitarian workplaces we may feel we’re taking down big structures and pushing against huge systems. The assumptions we want to challenge about power, however, don’t just show up on a macro level. Change can look like a series of small surprises: we repeatedly realize ways to break out of weary paradigms, even in the small stuff.
Take, for example, individual roles. We establish them when something can be accomplished more efficiently with a single person as opposed to being part of a group’s responsibility, like orchestrating the lunch & learn schedule. We also establish administrative roles in groups to manage ourselves – e.g. note-taker, timekeeper.
A conventional approach to roles might be describing the tasks for a role and naming a manager. This still echoes a parent/child dynamic, with concentrated control up the hierarchy: those with more power set requirements, those at a lesser level fulfill them. A recent workshop from Greaterthan made helpful distinctions about how this same dynamic can work with an adult/adult orientation, where power is distributed. In those settings, roles aren’t about defined tasks – a job description - they’re about accountabilities. The person who takes on a role has agreed to do what is necessary to reach a desired outcome. They may do it themselves. They may delegate pieces of it, or all of it. They steward the desired result and have freedom to decide how to accomplish it, defining tasks themselves.
Our internal programming from concentrated-power organizations may lead us to believe this redefinition would lead to role-holders prioritizing self-interest. Wouldn’t they delegate inappropriately to save themselves effort, or take the opportunity to advance personal agendas? Instead, we can trust the human desire to contribute meaningfully to collective outcomes – particularly if we have a voice in defining them! As we step out of performative obligation in our work, we create space for a deeper sense of personal responsibility towards the whole. Roles, in this framing, enable creative thinking to meet the organization’s needs.
Changing the way we frame roles can provoke some useful questions that help both role-holders and the entire organization:
Is the desired result clear? Creating a role without an associated outcome (“we want someone to take care of unclassified inquiries”) will not be satisfying to anyone.
What kind of decisions can this role make on their own?
When and how do we re-evaluate roles? Naturally, needs will shift.
How do we re-assign roles? Shifting often helps us keep the big picture in mind. Separating people and roles helps us balance power.
The excellent thing about these small-scale surprises is that they provide such a good opportunities for low-risk experiments. What kind of roles might provide fertile ground for individual contribution and efficiencies for your group?
Thanks again to Greaterthan for pointing me to this great additional resource, describing a process for defining and distributing roles in distributed-power settings!
Comments