Power With: Tracking the Paradigm Shift from Power Over to Power With

2009-10-15T18:07:19Z

Dr. Paul O. Radde’s

“Power With” Perspective

A Shift in the Political Power Paradigm:
Power Over à Power With

©Paul O. Radde, Ph.D. 10-27-09

The Party of “No:”

Not Just Obstinate & Obstreperous;

Simply Obsolete

The unplanned obsolescence of specific branches of the Republican party has left numerous congress persons exposed, yet incapable of disguising their irrelevance and obsolescence. The resultant obstinacy results in a lack of creativity, contribution, collegiality, and collaboration which is stymieing the business of the country.

Power Over practitioners are caught unprepared to move into the next stage of civilization. Their feints and deliberations have so far resulted in nothing creative, practical, positive, or coherent. They have advanced the case for their obsolescence by offering nothing of substance.

They try to seem relevant by stonewalling, blaming, complaining, and negativity - staying on the scene. Yet, they are out of the game. Theirs is the politics of “no,” modeled on the “terrible two’s” stage of development, yet lacking in any forward movement. All they seem to be able to do is to dissemble, tear down, wreak havoc

The political sea change and shift which has eroded their very basis for action and deliberation is a paradigm shift. The shift is from a Power Over approach with a Top Down basis for relating to others, an approach which historically has defined those politicians’ way of relating – to a Power With approach to others that initiates a Side-by-Side mode of relating. “Others” includes a 1:1 relationship, up through international dealings. . They disdain Power With practices, yet they have no comprehension of what they are criticizing.

One need only compare the approach of the campaign and administration of President Obama with that of George W. Bush, to find a clear cut example of this shift with their striking contrasts in decision making, inclusion, deliberation, fact gathering, transparency. .

This paradigm shift is apparently being missed by the political pundits and commentators. They refer to terms like “acting unilaterally,” moving from “shock and awe military solutions to diplomacy,” specific examples of the Power Over practices, while missing the big picture. For the paradigm shift is not just occurring in politics. This shift toward egalitarianism has been underway in organizations for years. The management approach within an organization includes: moving from “command and control” method of management to a “collaborative” method.

People Attempt to Project an “Image of Competence”

Each person in our society wishes to at least look adequate and get validation as having some degree of worth and potential contribution. So, it is essential to most people to maintain an “image of competence.” Meanwhile, they bear the resultant stress of potentially being found out as an imposter if in fact they are not competent.

Maintaining this image may be one reason that business meetings lack candor, lest they expose the incompetence, or shortcomings of one or more of the participants. When there is a sea change in the way operations are carried out, the way politics is conducted, it potentially exposes the shortcomings of those who either cannot or will not adopt the new practices. In this case, they may not know what hit them.

The Rip Van Winkle Effect

Imagine certain of your political skills being rendered useless, and with it, your knowledge and ability to interact in the world. It’s as if you’ve been asleep for 20 years, and awake one election morning to find that the world has changed. You’ve always been in charge. Then, suddenly, the rules of the game change on you. You are out of the loop, obsolescent. You’re like a latch key kid whose key won’t let him into his own house. You feel lost and alone, except for the other latchkey kids on your block.

You need humor [think Rep. John Boehner] and humility to even begin an interchange with those with alternate views. But your approach has always been to act from a position of dominance, a position of superiority, felt and postured status.

How do you embody and enact such a shift internally, psychologically? Would you not dig in your heels and see if you can find a strategy for continuing or re-establishing politics as usual? By doing nothing and only saying “no,” you at the very least limit your exposure and seeming vulnerability. Yet, you are still isolated, incompetent. And until you are really called out on it, you can maintain this approach as a viable way to act. Yet, you are politically illiterate when it comes to Power With practices.

In what may be less a psychological principle, but more a life learning:

When someone cannot afford to lose, they don’t negotiate.

That has entrenched the non-negotiable stance of the “loyal opposition.”

The shift is from Power-Over, the practices of Top-Down relationships. The time-worn vertical, hierarchical organizational chart is giving way to more horizontal, egalitarian, free flowing structures, to Power-With, the practices of Side-by-Side relationships.

Questioning the Nobel Peace Prize

Obama may very well have received the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to articulate a new direction and approach in international politics. It is readily apparent that there is a vastly different mentality and mindset fueling the approach of his administration. Now it is essential that he captains his administration to keep it on a Power With course.

My personal concern is that the Chicago politicians surrounding him are not on the same page regarding his mode of operation, and will quickly regress back to politics as usual, what they know. Thus, they would compromise his Power With approach and effectiveness. On a May flight to DC seated next to a cabinet secretary and his staff, one staffer held solidly Power Over views.

An early and high level reversal of the PO to PW trend would relieve on those resistant to change, and create a deep seated cynicism against any similar Power With approach gaining traction in the near future. If you disappoint the electorate, the electorate will protect themselves against disappointment in the future by not getting their hopes up or their votes up.

Most likely, there are numerous politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, who have no clue that this is a “whole new approach.” So, as soon as they revert to their own politics as usual, they undermine and sabotage the Obama administration’s approach. If that is the case, and I fear it is, maintaining collaboration between progressive Democrats may be very difficult.

Power With requires alternative practices, ways of being, communicating, perspective, attitudes, and beliefs. It is an approach that will permeate every aspect of our lives. To make the shift, it is important to spell out those alternative practices and dispositions. The obvious, needs to be made obvious.

For example, Obama wishes to seek common ground through dialogue and discussion. Yet, for those politicians who polarize positions and demonize the opposition, they will not seek common ground with those of a different and non-favorable point of view. That is too much like seeking to be in league with the devil. In the same way that they would not open their computer to a virus, they offer no port with which to connect with these diabolical “others.” How else can they maintain their exclusivity, self-righteousness, and supremacy?

The Thrashing of Imperialism in Death Throes

When a belief system with its resulting expression in the social order is dying out, the resistance is typically more pronounced at first. The death throes are typically violent. We are witness to the demise of a brash imperialism, the death throes of which are anything but elegant. One image it calls up is that of the movie monster Godzilla, mortally wounded, yet still thrashing about, indiscriminately wreaking damage on life and property.

Unilateral power moves in the world have been, and still are, looked upon by certain segments of the population as sources of pride and patriotism. The same mentality that wanted to "nuke Iran" during the Carter era hostage taking, will see anything less as "weak" and lacking in spine or resolution. Even seeking to discuss with an enemy, let alone apologizing to anyone for anything, is seen as a drain on a hard earned, and thoroughly justified invulnerability. The parent nation justifies its actions, “because I say so.”

In his 1964 presidential campaign, Sen. Barry Goldwater commented that it only took a “pea sized brain” to criticize and find fault. In this 2008 election backwash, the Power Over Republicans have maintained an indignant sense of entitlement, unquestioning certitude, denial, and dismissiveness of Power With practitioners. They cling to a core policy that coheres around security and continuity, an approach remarkably similar to the reptilian brain approach to life, the pea sized brain. That remains their orientation. Rather than adapting to reality, they continue to do the same Power Over things, expecting a different outcome. They don’t “get” that a paradigm shift is happening. 2008 was not just an election. It was a sea change in human history.

What Does Power With Mean Doing?

Power With means being open and inclusive of others, listening, taking in fully what they say in order to understand and respond. It involves respecting the other. There is a complete skill set around engaging in discussion and dialogue, seeking common ground, working toward an agreement or result that is acceptable and sustainable by all parties. It is the core of diplomacy.

It means sharing meaning, truly knowing and understanding another, and being known by and understanding another. It’s a Charlie Rose interview of exploration and discovery, rather than a Karl Rove debate scenario in which winning on points by any means, is the outcome sought.

More than a skill set, Power With is an attitude, an entire predisposition on the part of the practitioner. One needs come to grips with those ingrained Power Over practices, and step out from under the safety afforded by them. Power Over engages in exclusivity, judgment, superiority, shunning, disengagement, banishing, eliminating. The more easily this can be executed, the more secure the “ego” of the Power Over practitioner. For some, executing a Power Over practice might be initiated with a look, nod, upraised eyebrow, a wave of the hand. The less exertion required physically, the more one demonstrated Power Over prominence and status.

Evolving from this favored [some would say pre-destined] place of invulnerability requires a maturing on the part of the Power Over practitioner. One has to admit to the illusion of supremacy on which his ego hangs its status and security.

Lee Atwater, chair of the Republican National Committee in 1988, known for his skill in political street fighting, is one illustrative example: As the March 30, 1991 NYTimes article stated: “Friends said Mr. Atwater spent his final months searching for spiritual peace. The man renowned for the politics of attack turned to apologies, including one to Michael S. Dukakis, the Massachusetts Governor who was the 1988 Democratic Presidential nominee.” This occurred as part of his seeking to make things right with former political enemies just before he died of a brain tumor at age 40. Years later Republican leaders denied that it ever happened, writing his attempts off to the effects of the brain tumor.

Power Over practitioners need to come to grips with their ego defensiveness that puts everything in terms of survival and continuity. That ego dominance constitutes a major internal deterrent to moving away from Power Over practices. “Why should I become vulnerable? I’d rather be venerable, above it all, invulnerable.”

Power With requires an internal psychological transformation to deal with a reactive, survival focus, and move on to harmonious co-existence. One has to admit to some degree of species solidarity with other human beings, rather than maintaining the stilted and singular stance of being superior to “those others.” The reduction in stress alone can make it worthwhile, let alone the improvement in quality of relationship and one’s own ability to be truly present. This is especially true within one’s marriage and family. Power With is a major family value that one can practice. Yet, without compelling inducements or the appropriate impelling inspiration, there is little immediate incentive to doing things differently.

Caution: Transforming one’s behavior, especially in elected politics, from Power Over to Power With requires an extended transition period in which to learn and adapt some consistency with regard to practices, relationship, communication, leadership, diplomacy, negotiation, collaboration.

People Don’t Change. Things Change. People Transition.

This is more than a singular change as a result of a single choice. More than flipping the switch on an electric light from off to on, one needs to know that:

§ People do not change! At least when the change is an established regimen, phenomenon, or way of being.

§ Things change.

§ People transition. And a transition typically looks more like a roller coaster than a ski jump. There is a certain yo-yo effect of rising out of prior habits and practices, only to discover another entrenched aspect of Power Over practices that find you falling back on how you used to conduct business.

For those who want answers on how long the transition takes, it takes as long as it does. A full new skill set and range of practices is required. But that is no excuse for not beginning.

Power Over Was The Only Precedent

Our history is one of Power Over politicians. It's the way most politicians we have known and observed have acted. It’s the way politics gets done. Power Over was the dominant approach, and an approach of domination. Chicago style said it all. These were the antecedent role models. Until recently almost all were male, but women are equally capable of Power Over practices.

Liking Power With is Not Enough

Now, just because someone likes the new Power With approach does not mean that they necessarily understand it or know how to implement it. And just because they were swept into office on Obama’s coattails or serve in his administration is there any reason to rest assured that this approach will be established and practiced with consistency.

True adoption requires:

1. Understanding

2. Skill

3. Commitment

The absence of any one of these items spells disaster. 1 x 1 x 0 = 0. You have to have all three to function in Power With politics. Anything less will result in mid-term failure. How one balances the very blatant positioning of Rahm Emmanuel, to all appearances a total Power Over practitioner, in such a high position bodes poorly for long term Power With success.

The concept is new. The practices are unfolding every day. We look for consistency, for role modeling, for assurance that it will work. But replacing millennia-long ways of interacting will not change overnight.

The transition will not be without failings. But those who fail must reassert their intent to act in a Power With manner. On many occasions, those who lead will be accused of acting weak, of draining our power reserves, endangering our sovereignty. There will be inconsistency. We are finding our way. Attribute much of it to the faltering exploratory first steps of establishing a “whole new way of doing things.”

Even though Power With is the focus of the change many quite obviously hoped for enough to vote for, in the next installment we will work to further understand the dynamics of the current Top Down reality out of which we are being transitioned, especially some of the difficulty and resistance to initiating the transition.

Welcome

2009-10-14T17:26:08Z

Welcome to my blog. Please check back soon for new entries.

BLOG.INNERTUDE.COM

Power With: Tracking the Paradigm Shift from Power Over to Power With

A Shift in the Political Power Paradigm:Power Over à Power With©Paul O. Radde, Ph.D. 10-27-09

Questioning the Nobel Peace Prize

The Thrashing of Imperialism in Death Throes

Welcome

A Shift in the Political Power Paradigm:
Power Over à Power With

©Paul O. Radde, Ph.D. 10-27-09