For New Members
Onboarding, what members hope for, guide positions, the mindsets collective freedom asks of us, the tendencies in the way, and conflict resolution.
01New Member Onboarding Process: Overview
For the sake of transparency and collective understanding, here is a brief overview of what the new member onboarding process looks like from the standpoint of Worker-Members:
This period is meant to help new members acclimate, and to help everyone involved figure out if the new relationship (regarding both labor and community) is something we want to cultivate further. Within this 3-month trial period, new members (as Creative-Members) cannot become Aspiring Worker-Members.
This trial period is intended to show new members what it is like to work within 400M and to help them better understand what levels of commitment they want to take on. After the trial, new members can choose to remain Creative-Members, or become Aspiring Worker-Members.
02What Current Members Hope for with New Members
Prospective members of 400M will be joining as Creative-Members. A Creative-Member is one amongst four other circles of labor that work within 400M Productions. These circles of labor overlap and are fluid in their activities and domains of responsibility, allowing members to transition between spheres depending on the work they do and the commitments they make, as well as the time they have spent building trust and working within 400M Productions (the Worker-Member circle requiring the most trust and having the heaviest rotation of responsibilities). Each circle is self-governing and has different levels of commitment and labor, with circles involving less commitment and labor having narrower impact. Joining circles with wider impact on the org is based upon the building of trust with other members and showing consistent commitment.
This approach is rooted in a governance system referred to as “sociocracy,” structured to ensure that people within circles of labor hold autonomy around the decisions that most directly impact them. See here for more details on sociocracy.
As Creative-Members, new members will work alongside other members on creative projects within 400M Productions. Work is self-assigned (with consideration for technical skills and proficiencies) by the members of production teams, and range across different tasks. These creative tasks include (but are not limited to):
In addition to collaborating with other members on the creative sides of production, new members collectively control the organizing and administrative labor that goes into managing the work that they do. This allows members to have decision-making power in their processes as a group, and as individuals, while preventing people from taking on (or developing into) the role of manager/administrator/boss.
In order for this to function as intended, all members need to be honest about what they can and can’t take on within each production cycle, and be both communicative and responsive with other members on their respective teams.
It is always better to be upfront about not being able to take on a task, or needing more time, than to push labor to the last minute.
In the short term, not being upfront and honest will lead to mistakes and unnecessary stress on yourself and others. In the long term, this leads to creative burnout, and can snowball into deeper resentment towards other individual members (or the organization as a whole).
Each creative production orients around a production cycle. During cycles of production (weekly, monthly, or per release, for example), a meeting is held where production teams will move through different self-assigned “guide” positions, rotating more administrative tasks during meetings, while discussing what work needs to be done and scheduling deadlines based upon member availability. These guiding positions can be created, dissolved back into the group, or changed at the will of each respective production team. Guiding positions can be taken on by one person or a group of people, depending on the context. Examples of these administrative guiding positions are:
While everyone will have preferences and positions that fit their own respective skills or comfort zones, it is encouraged that members rotate through different positions so that (1) everyone is knowledgeable about and understands the processes that go into each section of production (i.e., the labor that others might be doing at any given time), and so (2) a team does not become dependent on one person who consistently takes on the same task(s). Ideally, this way, no matter who is available for a given production cycle, everyone can have the ability to fulfill these positions as a team.
03Group Mindsets for Collective Freedom
For many of us, this is the first time in our lives we are essentially given the opportunity to experience freedom in a shared community with others. Because this experience is so outside of the realm of our everyday lives, it can be daunting to step in and take advantage of this opportunity in service to ourselves and others at the same time.
This task is not easy, especially considering that the very conditioning that makes it difficult and even frightening to step into freedom is precisely what allows us to survive in capitalist society today and cope with its daily, casual forms of violence.
To better understand this, we have identified some social tendencies and perspectives that tend to be barriers to practicing “freedom” in cooperative and/or communal labor spaces, and each of the barriers in cooperative spaces that we have identified will be connected to how they serve as survival mechanisms in many spaces within our broader society. This will hopefully allow us to better understand why we have leaned on these “barrier” tendencies, what purposes they tend to serve, and how we can learn to break them down, creating space for new ways of being with ourselves and others.
Informed by our past experiences of organizing together and the changes we have made along the way, here are some of the most common “barrier” tendencies we have observed at both the individual and group levels. If these barriers show up consistently, it is worth us addressing them with the group, and working towards moving beyond them through discussions or group exercises.
One of the barriers we see and have experienced the most is a lack of initiative, which has led to passivity in many (if not most) members.
In our schools, our places of work, our political systems, and elsewhere, we are typically waiting for someone else to tell us what to do. If there is a problem, the assumption is typically that “someone else” will fix this problem, or that we will wait until someone else tells us to fix it (and how to do so). In order to fully participate in directly democratic and free spaces, we must necessarily work against this passive way of being, taking action in order to shape reality around us and, in doing so, open up new ways of being.
“All that you touch, You Change.All that you Change, Changes you.”Octavia ButlerParable of the Sower
Without taking initiative on the individual level, spaces for collective decision-making are rendered useless shells of potential and breeding grounds for informal hierarchies. Especially around administrative labor, passivity can stem from an irrational fear that we are not knowledgeable, skilled, or qualified enough to perform a certain task, even when that task is completely within our power. When we are controlled by this fear, we project a superiority onto others who end up doing the majority of the work as the wider group stands around, waiting to be told what to do.
This pattern is not only an aspect of how informal hierarchies form, but is also unsustainable for those on either side of this equation. When an “elite” group or single individual does a majority of collective labor, pressure is put on this informal “elite” to constantly perform due to them holding everything together. When this informal “elite” inevitably needs to take a step back or is unavailable for a period of time, the group becomes, at best, dysfunctional and, at worst, ceases to function in any capacity. This creates grounds to project the issues of the group onto an easy target, blaming all dysfunction on an “other” rather than taking responsibility and initiative in a collective form. Both of these dynamics can clearly be seen in the lead up and aftermath of a point of tension in 400M’s history that we call “The Letter” event, where a single individual was doing a majority of the collective labor, took a step back, and then the group became dysfunctional — the individual was then made a scapegoat for this group’s dysfunction, and when space was opened up for others to take on some of the labor that the individual was doing, almost no one stepped forward.
This pattern is broken when we cease to be passive and take initiative in the spaces that we have created.
“When a group has no specific task (and consciousness-raising is a task), the people in it turn their energies to controlling others in the group. This is not done so much out of a malicious desire to manipulate others (though sometimes it is) as out of lack of anything better to do with their talents. Able people with time on their hands and a need to justify their coming together put their efforts into personal control, and spend their time criticizing the personalities of the other members in the group. Infighting and personal power games rule the day. When a group is involved in a task, people learn to get along with others as they are and to subsume dislikes for the sake of the larger goals. There are limits placed on the compulsion to remold every person into our image of what they should be.”Cathy LevineThe Tyranny of Tyranny
It is worth noting that even when trying to address this barrier, it is easy to fall back into the same pattern if there is no follow-through on initiative. An example of this would be a member seeing that the group they are a part of is no longer functioning, waiting around for others to make decisions, and then attempting to take action against this by only suggesting a meeting around labor distribution or even an idea for a new project. While this is a great first step, without follow-through, this ends up being only a half-step, and a form of “Comment Shrugging,” with an issue being openly identified, but no action being taken to address the issue, kicking the implementation of solutions down to someone else (this is explained in more detail later within this document).
Passive Example: “Hey, there’s no editing schedule this week. We should meet to figure that out.”
This is an example of how taking half-actions can lead to further passivity. Here, we can see that the individual is aware of an issue (there is no editing schedule), but when suggesting a solution (having a meeting), they leave the implementation of a solution to someone else. In this example, taking action could be suggesting times, a host for the meeting, following up with individuals, proposing an outline for the meeting, and even setting up a call link.
Active Example: “Hey, there’s no editing schedule for this week yet. Does everyone have time to have a production meeting on Monday or Tuesday at 6 PM? If not, please throw out a time that works for you. I think we should take the time to finalize the editing schedule, as well as discuss how we can better rotate administrative tasks so we don’t miss out on sharing our edits. I’m down to facilitate and can send a link for the meeting before the call.”
While this is not always necessary in a group that is functioning with members taking initiative to control their own administrative and creative labor, when this is not the case, taking initiative at this level can help break through passivity in a group and make space for others to take action for themselves.
In a phrase: Suggesting action is not the same as taking action.
To help identify this dynamic when in a group, ask yourself if there is one person or a small group of people who:
“Self-management without the ‘self’ that is expected to engage in this ‘managing,’ in fact, turns into its very opposite: hierarchy based on obedience and command.”Murray BookchinToward an Ecological Society
If we do not take ownership over our own collective labor and help in the managing and administrative tasks that allow for a group to function autonomously, we end up being managed, creating the types of spaces we are actively building against.
The belief in non-hierarchical organization and “free association” alone is not enough to make these practices functionally exist in group dynamics. Quickly, without the knowledge and practice of self-management, these ideals can wither away into a relationship of manager and managed, boss and employee. This is a constant struggle. To counteract this, it is important for each member of a group to understand how the group functions as a whole via rotation of tasks and sharing of knowledge.
The rotation of tasks allows for each member of a group to understand operational processes in a more holistic way by actively participating in the labor that goes into a project, and therefore blurring the distinctions of specific “roles” being formed.
If everyone knows what goes into a specific part of the creative process, the more we are all equipped to get more involved and become less susceptible to relationships of command and obey through an imposed superior (informal or formal hierarchies). The more we allow responsibilities to be broken down into smaller, more specialized (and compartmentalized) tasks that only certain individuals have the opportunity to carry, the more we allow our creative spaces to become Taylorist assembly lines for “content,” needing managers to make sure each “cog” in the “machine” is functioning at “maximum efficiency.”
This does not take away from the role that specialization, experience, and hard skills have in the creative process. Every member of the group will have different levels of experience with specific tasks that should not be ignored (we sometimes call these “skill points,” similar to the attributes of characters in a video game). However, this should not allow for individuals more skilled in administrative or creative work to turn into the sole decision-makers of a group. These differences in skill should be embraced, allowing for the sharing of knowledge between members and the ability to strengthen each other’s weak spots.
Rotation of organizational and administrative labor is not done in the hopes that everyone will become equally skilled and interchangeable in all tasks, or be infinitely controlled by these differences. Instead, it allows for us to embrace an “equality of unequals,” as we take ownership of our own labor and make decisions based on the knowledge of our own skills and abilities. Self-management allows for us to be aware of differences without being ruled by them.
The way that this “self-management vs. obedience” dynamic has shown up as a barrier in the past within 400M is when specific individuals in production circles have taken up the seemingly harmless “role” of “coordinator.” Due to either perceived lack of knowledge behind the labor, or lack of initiative in self-management amongst the wider membership, these “coordinators,” given enough time, eventually begin to take on all administrative tasks as the members of the group fall into taking direction in a fractured labor process. As the process becomes increasingly more fractured, the gap between creatives and “administrators” grows, solidifying top-down managerial dynamics and seemingly increasing the difficulty of them being addressed. This gap forms an almost mythic atmosphere around these administrative tasks, making what we don’t understand seem incomprehensible. In spaces set up for bottom-up democracy, but struggling with this dynamic, administrative work becomes something that is done by an informal hierarchy imposed on “the true members” making the “real” decisions “behind the scenes” as the others wait for orders to come down from above.
To dismantle this hierarchy, we must be willing to look “behind the curtain.”
The problem with this dynamic is not inherent in the act of “coordination.” At many times during the production process, it can be helpful to have someone to steward coordination of tasks, especially on larger projects with many moving parts. This can allow for people to really focus in on their creative contribution and trust that others will be able to do the same without worrying about the specifics of it all coming together. This task only becomes an issue when the specifics of the pieces coming together are never understood by all members of the group, and when coordination is either imposed onto a group, or expected (and/or depended on) by the group at all times. The tasks of coordination must be understood by all members in order to be rotational, delegated within boundaries clearly defined, and for these temporary responsibilities to be created and dissolved into the whole at the will of the group.
To help identify this barrier, ask yourself:
“Assertiveness is a social skill that relies heavily on effective communication while simultaneously respecting the thoughts and wishes of others. People who are assertive clearly and respectfully communicate their wants, needs, positions, and boundaries to others. There’s no question of where they stand, no matter what the topic.”Psychology Today Staff
Healthy self-assertion involves the active practice of deciding to stand up for your own values, ideas, needs, wants, and boundaries. This practice is critical in collective decision-making and organizing spaces, where the main value of this structure is that everyone can take ownership of the organization, and meaningfully shape the social, organizational, and productive structures of the circles they are a part of.
We learn from a very young age that there is — to varying degrees — some sort of social hierarchy that should dictate how we interact with others (a “pecking order”). Parents often tell their children not to “talk back” to them, as doing so will result in punishment (or, at the very least, the loss of favor or deprivation of a reward). As we grow and venture out on our own, we encounter this same dynamic time and time again — in the police, bosses/managers, and even peers (to name some common examples). From this, we learn to adapt, conforming to protect ourselves from authorities and gain their favor (and, in turn, status) in authoritarian social contexts.
Due to the consistency with which we have been conditioned into this behavior, we do it unconsciously, even if we are in a context that does not require this for survival — such as in collective decision-making spaces. This makes us less likely to take up space and assert ourselves, creating an environment that is a fertile breeding ground for informal hierarchies and projections — one that nurtures fear, isolation, and resentment rather than authenticity, community, democracy, healthy communication, and growth. Lack of self-assertion can also condition us to see others who practice self-assertion in a way that amplifies existing fears and insecurities. This can look like shrinking back to “safety,” charging forward in a perceived act of “self-defense” (in the case of “The Letter”), or even just reaching a boiling point, destructively lashing out.
No matter how much space has, in actuality, been created by others, it is possible for people to feel like there is no space, solely due to the fact that they are afraid of asserting themselves — be it for fear of rejection, or simply not realizing that they too are capable of taking up space and asserting themselves.
If we cannot take up space and assert ourselves in the world and in our relationships, how can we expect to live in community with others? How can a sculpture bear the handprints of those who never reached out to shape it into a form? What’s the point in having shared space if we will not step in to fill it? By practicing healthy self-assertion, we will find ourselves better able to impress upon the world around us, to take up space in meaningful ways, and to cultivate the world we want to live in.
Example: You are voting on a proposal and disagree with most of it. You are anxious, and put off your vote until the last minute when you see that everyone has voted “Full Support.” You feel like the odd one out and don’t want to be seen as “holding everything up,” so you vote “Full Support” in spite of your disagreements.
Example: You are in a meeting to discuss the details of a proposal, and you have ideas that you think are critical to the organization and/or your circle. You are filled with passion and afraid that if these ideas aren’t taken up, you will not be valued by others and your good ideas will be wasted. In order to make yourself heard you strong-arm conversation, interrupt people, and make pot-shot comments at others who disagree with you.
Example: During a meeting, someone makes a statement that touches a nerve, or maybe someone expresses a sentiment or perspective that you find highly disagreeable. Because of this, your view of that person is heavily degraded. After this meeting, you actively dismiss this person by not responding to their messages, are unusually harsh in the feedback you share with them on their work, or maybe actively try to exclude that person while coordinating for no reason other than your distaste for them.
Example: You are unhappy that a project you care about is going in a creative direction that you do not like. Rather than speaking up and asserting your own vision for the project, you don’t say anything, and instead retroactively try to get what you want through back-handed tactics to defame or degrade the people you are in disagreement with, or even try to guilt trip someone else for not speaking up for you when the floor of communication was just as much yours as it was anyone else’s.
04Unhelpful Tendencies in Groups
“Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”Frank HerbertDune
Because the ways in which we work and organize ourselves within 400M differ from most of the places we live and work outside of 400M, it is essential that we take the time to learn new skills of communication, cooperation, assertiveness, and initiative with other members as we grow together (as a collective, and as individual human beings). This process may also involve letting go of things that we may have felt we needed for survival, used as defense mechanisms, and/or performed as “trauma responses” in the past.
While learning together, it can be helpful to understand common behaviors that we have exhibited in the past, and that can create space for unnecessary stress and anxiety for ourselves and others in organization. Over time, these issues can develop into resentment towards others and informal hierarchies. While some of these issues might ultimately be caused by factors outside of ourselves, the ways we respond (or even react) to them come from within us and are connected to our own insecurities, fears, and overall beliefs. Without interrogating certain parts of our internal thinking with a compassionate curiosity, we will continue to be more swayed by external factors that are outside of our control (which means more emotional chaos and/or entanglement).
For more on the psychological dynamics of social organization and unconditional self-acceptance, please see here.
To help see how some of these psychological dynamics play out in our collaborative processes, below are examples of some common behaviors that we have seen lead to problems in organization. It’s important to understand that these behaviors are not inevitable, but are instead temporary tendencies that we might exhibit in certain moments — tendencies that can be abandoned whenever we are ready.
This is not about who someone is, but what someone is doing.
We will likely be adding to this list over time as tendencies emerge in our collective experiences as a cooperative organization, and as a means to develop a comprehensive index of pain points both common to democratic organization, and ameliorable through various means.
05Conflict Resolution
Conflict resolution is a tool (or set of tools and practices) which, rather than completely eliminating tensions and disagreements (which is impossible), utilizes them as opportunities for growth, understanding, creativity, and healthy relationships. When we practice healthy conflict resolution, we turn challenges and differences into opportunities for growth, rather than insurmountable frustrations.
It is worth being clear that though “conflict” in “conflict resolution” is typically used as a catch-all, umbrella term for “seemingly insurmountable tensions or social problems in organizations,” it is important that we not directly equate “conflict” with “disagreement” or even “tension.” We can perhaps think of “conflict” as a “spectrum” upon which varying things — like tensions, disagreements, and misunderstandings — lie.
Etymologically speaking, “conflict” has its roots in “fighting” or “battle,” but social issues need not escalate to the level of aggressive “fighting” when we take the time to learn how to check in with ourselves emotionally before communicating with others (whenever problems arise).
This is key, for if people do not understand (or take heed of) this, they can easily use their own lack of emotional regulation as an excuse for inappropriate behaviors that make others uncomfortable, and even unsafe. This is especially important for those raised as “men” (and/or who struggle to control their anger/frustration).
“Fights” are likely to happen in organization, but they should, ideally, be seen as very rare exceptions, and not a “normal” part of “expression.”
“Avoidance” is when we shy away from conflicts rather than finding ways to communicate, compromise, and come to solutions through them. Avoidance sees conflicts (which includes tensions or disagreements) as “failures” rather than integral parts of organizational process.
When people — who are all different — assert themselves healthily, conflicts will arise at some point. Avoidance sees this as a problem to be avoided entirely, rather than an opportunity to grow through difference and acceptance.
Conflict is often (and understandably) falsely equated with arguing, fighting, social dysfunction, lack of cooperation, and more. Because of this, it is seen as something inherently unhealthy and dangerous to organization. Thus, many find it easier to sweep any genuine sense of conflict “under the rug,” as to prolong the addressing of it. But when “conflict” is understood as natural tension and disagreement in social interaction, this allows us to reframe our thinking around how to best approach conflicts as they arise (and much more quickly).
Most of us learn from a young age that it is best not to be “a nail that sticks out, because nails that stick out beg to be hammered down.” We learn this in the home (under authoritarian parenting), school, work, religious institutions, and popular culture, and we often maintain a behavior of avoidance long after we leave the immediate contexts in which we first learned it. We learn through the conditional acceptance of these social contexts (and others) that we need to develop a false, outward-facing self that causes less friction. We often learn the inverse of this as well — that people who assert views which differ from our own and thus present us with uncertainty and novelty are “troublemakers.”
In all of this, we subtly learn to reinforce the very pressures to conform that cause us so many problems (both organizationally, and in interpersonal relationships in general). These tendencies can cause us to actively “shove down” feelings around the subtle things that bother us in the day-to-day, and that can ultimately pile up into wider, more serious issues that plague not only us, but others as well.
When conflict arises, it is key not to initially assume that issues lie with people themselves, but to rather, in good faith, remember that issues often arise from dissonance in beliefs, behaviors, forms of miscommunication (encoding, decoding, transmission, etc., issues), misunderstandings, and/or differences in values and preferences.
Healthy self-assertion is key in conflict resolution, as lack of assertion is often both a way people try to avoid conflict, as well as a source of needless conflict. Remember, the goal is not to create tensions or disagreements for the sake of conflict — to seek them out compulsively, as if conflict in and of itself is healthy. Rather, practice accepting that conflicts will arise, and welcome/accept them when they come. When you do encounter conflicts, healthy self-assertion will be key in helping everyone involved come through them and grow together.
We all live and experience a unique perspective which is informed by our experiences (and lack thereof), preferences, beliefs, and values. Regardless of how aligned people are in terms of values, there will be different things people “know to be aware of.” Our perspectives all have blind spots, and this can make it easy to take things for granted. This phenomenon is inevitable, can cause a lot of issues, and is rooted in misunderstanding.
Everyone has personal pain points — areas of sensitivity where it is easier for them to be “triggered” — that they carry with them, often from past experiences. It’s also very common that people lack an awareness of their own pain points, as well as the pain points of others. Many of us have experienced feeling surprisingly emotional when a topic is brought up, a story is told, or we encounter communication styles that remind us of negative experiences in our pasts. It’s important to be mindful of this in general when communicating with other people, but this is particularly important when facing conflicts that can arise in decision-making and collaboration.
When conflicts arise (no matter how mild or intense), it can be easy to get caught up in the moment and lose sight of the other person/people. We can do a lot to reduce this tendency by taking some time to slow down and really be present with the people around us, as well as ourselves. When listening to someone speak, it’s critical to give them all of your attention. Don’t try to think of how you’re going to respond until after they have finished. When they are finished, think about what they have said, and process it now that you have heard them out. After this, you will likely be better equipped to respond mindfully, since you were more present for what they expressed. You also spent time thinking and being present with yourself, which sets you up to exercise even more intentionality with how you respond.
Whenever possible, avoid making assumptions. As mentioned above, we all have blind spots, and so do others. We want to foster an environment in which people communicate and have dialogue out in the open authentically — a context and community in which we don’t need assumptions, and we can just ask in good faith. Our assumptions are something we create due to not having all of the information we need — they are not something given to us by the person we are making assumptions about.
You are in a meeting with people who are in your circle and you are all discussing ideas for ways that you could all work better together. Through the discussion, you all agree that the best way to go about this is to ask everyone what their ideas are. As each person shares their ideas, one person suggests an approach that you dislike very much — and to top it all off, you find the language they use to describe it grating; it reminds you of a manager you had at a previous job who often made underhanded comments that were belittling. Several people in the meeting seemed to be nodding in approval and agreement with what they said; “Why would they agree with that?” you think. When they finish articulating their ideas, they open the floor up and ask what everyone thinks. What will you do?
Should you choose the avoidant approach, you might not do anything at all, except, of course, adding the person to your little mental “black book.”
Or perhaps you choose a more Machiavellian course: you might wait until the call is over and go to someone you know doesn’t agree with them and talk about how you don’t think they’re trustworthy; after all, this kind of thinking and language rails against everything the organization stands for! You must protect this space at all costs from cancerous ways of thinking like theirs, right?
Or another option would be to cut them off while they’re speaking and police their language in front of everyone. Good to make a strong example of that kind of thinking, right? Perhaps you say something to the effect of, “I had a good impression of you for a while, but the fact that you would even frame things like that makes me wonder if I really want to work with you at all.” There are countless ways you could avoid dealing with conflict in a healthy way.
You could also just shut down altogether and catastrophize: “If people like this are getting into this organization, this 400M is already done for.” You might think this as you sink into a smoldering malaise.
Maybe you try to do fun things with the person you disagree with, and drop little hints: “Perhaps if I can get closer to this person, I can change how they think over time to avert this crisis. Anyone who would suggest things like that would probably fight me back. What if everyone sides with them? Better safe than sorry!”
No matter how you spin it, it’s pretty disastrous, and in all of these situations, you yourself end up miserable, anxious, afraid, depressed, and angry. Let us examine the alternative approach.
As soon as the person begins speaking, you listen intently. You are focused to your utmost on what they are saying. You feel the prick of your pain points being brushed (or perhaps it feels more like being stabbed), but you remain focused on them, rather than spiraling into a rabbit hole of trying to (that instant) figure out why you feel that way.
When they finish speaking, you take a few breaths to reflect on what they have said. You realize that what they said sounded a lot like your old manager you despised, but realize that they have no way of knowing this. Because you listened and reflected, you separate the person from the problem.
You raise your hand and unmute your mic. You tell them that you have several concerns about what they have suggested, and that you are confused by some of their language; you seek clarification. “Yeah, I was curious what exactly you mean when you said [x] and described [x] as [x], etc. Would you mind clarifying?”
Another person in the meeting raises their hand; they too were confused as to what that person meant. You discuss it and it turns out that the person was using that language — however much it didn’t align with what you or most would say — to describe things that, rather than being in conflict with your values, actually align quite a bit.
You go into more detail as to why you disagree with what they have suggested in terms of how it would play out, and the discussion opens up as everyone works to tweak and take bits and pieces of these ideas, and synthesize various perspectives into something that aligns with all of your shared values and needs. Perhaps some compromises are made due to logistical details (schedules, bandwidth, what people want to be involved with, etc.), but, ultimately, due to your willingness to, in spite of your fear, address the conflict head on and in good faith, nobody even needs to bring it up again.
Multiple opportunities for growth, learning, and collaboration arose out of you being willing to accept and hold your discomfort, while nonetheless moving forward in light of your values.
Conflicts are inevitable in collective decision-making. For contrast, authoritarian modes of organization try to avoid conflicts by limiting who can contribute to decision-making; the fewer opinions, viewpoints, and ideas there are, the less likely “obvious” (see: visible) tensions, disagreements, and more are to arise (the breeding ground of repressed resentment and rage that all of this creates notwithstanding). Of course, this avoidance minimizes and subdues the potentialities and collective “processing power” of an organization — this, in turn, creates a fertile environment for myopic decision-making, and shapes the organization according to the will of a few.
When conflicts are instead accepted with compassionate curiosity as opportunities for growth through the process of “conflict resolution,” authentic dialogue and understanding are encouraged. This leads to better experiences and healthier outcomes for individuals, organizations, and communities.
06Appendix
Short Reads:
Longer Reads: