Many facilitation processes completely ignore power dynamics and their effect on group conversations. At best, power differentials are identified ahead of time but not addressed as interactions occur. This blog lists some of the ways that Art of Hosting plans for differences in power among participants. It also narrates a combination of processes implemented for this specific purpose.
In Art of Hosting, we learn to plan for power differentials by choosing in advance the best conversational technology for a specific need. Some ways to address power differential prior to hosting a conversation are:
- Assembling a diverse calling team: Ensuring that the team that crafts the event’s invitation is diverse will more likely attract a diversity in the participants;
- Setting the tone: Hosting a space of openness, welcoming all perspectives, and emphasizing that collective intelligence draws from the strength of multiple perspectives is key;
- Hosts developing an in-depth understanding of the event’s context ahead of time:Hosts should talk with the client and other key stakeholders about about group dynamics, priorities, and intentions;
- Choosing the appropriate technology and order of technologies: Hosts select the technologies by keeping in mind how the dynamics in the room may play out in relation to the intent of the event.
Yet, even in taking these steps, power dynamics occurring during conversational interactions are not addressed. For example, I’ve noticed in World Café and Open Space processes how some participants dominate while others choose to be quiet. Having done work with groups to help them overcome the limitations of their power dynamics, I’m frustrated at the lack of opportunities to debrief how power dynamics show up in many facilitation and participatory leadership technologies.
For this reason, Alissa and I created a conversational technology we call the Power Café, which we practiced at the Alternate Roots conference in North Carolina last August. This conference brought together artists and activists focused on social justice, and Alternate Roots has invested many years addressing racial and gender inequity within diverse groups. We had planned the process for an audience that was diverse along ethnic, racial, age, gender, and class lines. At the last moment, we were informed that another power dynamic would be added to our room. Representatives from foundations were coming to participate in the daily events as well.
What We Did (total 2.5 hours)
- In a circle, we led a quick step-forward/step-back activity identifying people’s roles and personal identities. This ensured that everyone in the room knew the range of diversities among us.
- We gave a teach-in about the emotional and practical challenges to collaboration among social activists.
- We hosted a two-round World Café in which the driving questions were emotions-based: What is Alternate Roots feeling right now? What are you feeling right now?
- After the Café, we asked participants to pair-up with someone with whom they felt comfortable talking about power dynamics. We gave each pair a list of questions to help them reflect on how power dynamics emerged in the World Café.
- Alissa and I put on big hats labelled “Provocateur” to remind participants we were changing our role. We told participants we would push them to be more critical in their exchanges. We also warned them that because we were rotating among groups, we wouldn’t necessarily be aware of everything they were talking about. It was up to them whether to welcome our comments or dismiss them.
We asked provocative questions: Did she behave that way because she’s white? Does he think he’s smarter because he’s older? Does class have something to do with this? Does race play a role here?
We ended in a closing circle where participants shared an insight they gained from their time in pairs or during the Cafe. Guiding questions included: What did you notice? What do you need? What can you offer?
What Happened
- We had a diverse group in all the ways we had expected, and participants were aware of the differences among them prior to engaging in conversation;
- Most content that emerged from the Café was about racial dynamics and the challenges that their community was facing in tending to the tensions arising from current events (Trayvon Martin and the Civil Rights Amendment were currently in the news), while spending time together;
- During the report-back from the Café, a white woman started crying, expressing her sense of being overwhelmed and wanting injustice to end, worldwide. We adjusted our time limits to offer her extra time for comfort and compassion from the group, and moved on when her experience threatened to dominate the rest of the group’s needs;
- When it came time for the pairs to form, an older male of color who was a funder wanted to pair up with a younger Native American woman, who was avoiding him. We noticed her dissenting body language and paired her up with someone else. We paired the man up with an older white woman who was one of the founders of Alternate Roots and comfortable in this “turf”;
- One woman who was especially quiet in the Café was quite vociferous in her pair. It was effective to alternate small group and large group activities;
- Participants mentioned (as we did, as well) that our positionality as two white women hosting social justice conversations was problematic, but we still worked effectively in helping some conversations take place and offering effective tools to do so.
Overall, the methodology worked well, and we are looking forward to new opportunities to practice it!