Power versus Partnership
Dominance has many faces, not the least of which is the white male patriarchal instinct that tends to reside in—or be projected onto—older white males like myself. Imagine being in a group in the workplace where people suggest and navigate collaboratively the tasks they have at hand. One suggests that the group expand to include more ideas, while another insists that your superior won’t find that acceptable. Imagine now that you are the one who has suggested that the group may find a greater variety of solutions, a richer environment of solution-making, if you work together, and you suggest a proposal that would allow your superior to assess the situation and decide for themselves if the proposal has sufficient merit to treat the rules merely as guidelines, or if maintaining the rules is to become the object of discipline.
When the question of whether to maintain strict adherence to the rules set forth by a superior or to submit a proposal to allow some leeway for the benefit of the organization, well in line with the higher goals of the organization, what do you do? Given the question—of whether your superior is more apt to want discipline strictly adhered to, or is open to a proposal of sufficient merit proceeding cautiously with her/his approval—has not been tested, what do you recommend to the others in the group? Is there a good enough reason not to test this, not to let your superior have the final say?
In a group setting recently I was faced with just such a dilemma. Having worked in management in a number of organizations, having had extensive experience with a wide variety of people as well as the ethical dilemma this sets up, I almost always leave it to my superior to decide. After all, if the working group has aligned itself with the highest mission and goals of the organization, then there is a strong likelihood that a good idea or process may get thrown out if the rules are enforced simply to enforce the rules. If the superior knows something we don’t, or if she must protect procedure over any other interest, she is in the best position to know. If your superior has to take responsibility for the outcome, he may find the proposition very unenticing.
So what if the opposing position is a woman? Consider the question carefully. Female leadership has been under-represented, female empowerment has been resisted by patriarchal institutions for as long as anybody can remember. Even today in more developed countries women tend to earn less than men for the same or even better quality of work. This equation does not factor in all the women who don’t have this level of privilege, who are still subject to actual and virtual enslavement, high risk of domestic violence, rape, victimization by their culture and all the insidious inequalities that we in more developed countries find egregious and inexcusable.
When I think of feminists such as Patricia Ireland, who gave me my sense of vision for a partnership-oriented future, I think of feminists who put consideration—and criticism—of a good decision before power politics. After all, given both decisions have the potential to affect us greatly, doesn’t it make sense to consider all the pros and cons carefully between choosing to adhere to the strict letter of the law without question, and choosing to offer a proposal that may cross cautionary boundaries, yet reap a large return in terms of process, substance and future available patterns of behavior?
In my experience, however, there are feminists as well, and I have a hard time invalidating them, who believe that power and female empowerment is more important than the quality of the idea that leadership backs. The outcome is certainly beneficial to the furthering of female empowerment and equality, which if not obvious has certainly been a guiding principle throughout my entire life.
I would hope that partnership feminists will differ from those who are competing for power just to be in and hold power. The implications for the health and wellbeing of all could not be any larger. The global climate crisis is but one ecological and social justice crisis that demands we all pull together and look for the most valuable ideas whether in lesser practices or in grand problem solving. Would you, as a woman, be willing to accept the catastrophic destabilization of the climate, because it happened to be a guy that came up with a solution, and it was your choice, because it didn’t come from a woman, not to implement or explore it?
