The Change to a Partnership Organization
This excellent and comprehensive article by Riane Esler and Alfonso Montouri explains that, "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." Continuing in pertinent part:
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....
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...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...
We can see that much of what is happening today is the conflict between a shift towards partnership systems, countered by dominator resistance. We can also see that much that is today being advocated in the organizational development field is a move toward an overarching partnership model.
1) Flatter, less rigid hierarchical organizations.
As the economic and social environment becomes ever more complex and rapidly changing, the rigid bureaucratic structures of bygone days have become maladaptive. Innovation, flexibility, and individual initiative were inhibited by such structures...
2) Change in the role of manager, from “the cop” to a facilitator, supportive role...
3) From Power Over to Power To/With...
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?”
4) Teamwork...
5) Diversity...
6) Gender-balance...
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...
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...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.
Reality: The world is what we make it, and human relations are socially constructed...
Myth: There is no hierarchy in the partnership organization.
Reality: The partnership organization has hierarchies of actualization-based not on force, but on competence, temporal priority, values, and other criteria.
Myth: Partnership is just working together, it means alliances, or collaboration.
Reality: Collaboration occurs in both partnership and dominator systems, but patterned differently in each. Partnership collaboration stresses mutual benefit-and not just to the collaborators, but to those affected by the collaboration...
Myth: In partnership everything is done by consensus.
Reality: Doing everything by consensus can lead to more subtle but just as pervasive forms of domination. Partnership requires give and take. Compromise can be creative.
Myth: In partnership there is no conflict, no differences.
Reality: There are always differences and conflicts. But how they are viewed and dealt with are different in a Dominator or Partnership context...
