High Standards as a Pathway to Justice, Part 1: What about the people who struggle to get on board?

Let’s talk about the folks who struggle when an organization throws its code of conduct in the trash and moves to create a culture of repair and justice instead of one based on surveillance and punishment.

This comes down to two related questions:

• What about people who are not on board with communicating and interacting in a repair-oriented way?

• What about the people who have historically had a difficult time with nuanced human interactions that we expect not to fare well when repair-oriented interpersonal communications are an expectation within the team?

Let’s take a look at both of these situations from the perspective of leadership.

Through their hesitation to change, the not-on-board folks will let you know you’re doing deeply revolutionary work. They may be protecting a sense of entitlement to power enshrined in the old ways of doing things. (Were they successful in previous systems at the expense of others or to the detriment of the community culture?) The hesitation may look subtle, like extensive questions, or claims that they “don’t get it,” or quietly ignoring the new systems and pathways you’ve created so they can continue supporting the antiquated structures that supported them personally or their concept of power-over dynamics as morally superior.

The test is whether their behavior changes. It may take time, and it will take support. They may want to “see an analysis” or statistics around how the change impacts the team output and culture. Generally, these are valuable things to know - is supporting people to engage in a new way working? Stats will convince cautious individuals that you’re on the right track.

Collect some stats. Share some anecdotes. Listen to what is happening among the people most affected.

The folks most entrenched in punishment-based power dynamics that support them personally will have difficulty getting on board. Supporting change in these people could require a deeper look at the history of interpersonal relationships within the organization and recognition of who the previous processes supported and who was left out. Looking at historical systems' impact on teammate retention, collective thriving, or psychological safety could be useful and persuasive here. Learning that a person is directly supported by (and advocating for) systems that propagate harm to others can be a hard lesson. The learning may be challenging, but the effort is valuable (see the previous article on Reckoning with History). A clear understanding of impacts is useful information for making better choices.

Or, maybe they will never be on board with a change from a power dynamic they see as “right.”

At this point, from your leadership role, it can feel tempting to lower standards and have the beautiful systems you created apply to most people on the team, but not quite everyone. (You might be considering this because the person in question, the one with the questionable moral compass, is a high producer for your team – remember that high producers are not the same thing as high performers.)

Don’t do it.

High standards in this situation mean supporting people to engage in repair even when they think that undermines their power. This likely also means that your not-on-board person likely has a zero-sum-game view of power and a quaint-if-it-wasn’t-so-tiresome view of power's purpose.

Supports could look like being very present and in the loop when a not-on-board person engages in the system. Leadership presence can support the legitimacy of your system and give it a sense of permanence. Even if you’re in a pilot phase or working through a slow/careful roll-out, moving with very clear intentionality could be useful when your not-on-board person is involved. They can become strong advocates when their fears are addressed (and they figure out that power shared is power multiplied).

Support for this type of person can also look like acknowledging their struggle and redirecting them toward actions they can do (especially if a perceived threat to their power triggers a mild existential crisis) to have an impact within the system. Support and recognize movement in the correct direction so they continue to move that way. Reinforce any progress, and there will be more progress.

Or not.

Some people will work to undermine changes that affect their sphere of influence. Sharing the history of problems with past processes may be unconvincing, or they think it does not apply to their unique (entitled) situation. Their movement in the direction you want everyone to go is unconvincing or seems like a smokescreen for sabotaging the process. You get one message to your face and a very different message from their actions or words when you’re not present.

Now you have a different choice.

Giving that not-on-board person more power or influence to buy their love will not work. Don’t do it.

The real choice is how to contain their negative impact. If you can fire them, this may be a good time to do that.

Stop the press: am I saying that you can/should remove someone from your team if they refuse to support power-with, repair-oriented structures of interpersonal communication?

Yes.

Suppose someone is not aligned with actualizing your deepest organizational values around building a thriving team through power-with interactions (and psychological safety, at the very least). In that case, they are likely not a good fit for your organization.

If you can’t fire them, be sure it’s not because you lack the will to do it. Resilient leadership is built by taking a strong stand on important issues, and this is a good time for one. Your trust within the team will dwindle if you’re not clearly and consistently creating and defending a forward-looking organizational culture that supports thriving teammates after telling your people that is your goal (aka standing in your integrity). By having your trust dwindle, I mean it is basically non-existent. And that is no fun. Nor does a lack of confidence in your leadership create a thriving organization. Performance will plummet, and your best people will depart. So, if you’ve tried to win them over and they are still not on board, your best move is to fire them (aka remove them from the team).

The very inferior Plan B here is to limit their impact while keeping them on the team.

Do they need to work remotely to decrease their impact? Lose or have limited access to team communication channels? Clarify some other boundaries that will reduce their ability to affect other teammates? Are there systems or boundaries you can implement to make this happen without you having to… surveil and punish them? (You see where this is going now, right?)

Creating a small, limited, just for this one thing, spot of surveillance and punishment within a system of repair that is building a community of justice is oxymoronic (at best). Ok, it's complete hypocrisy - the kind where any respect for you and your leadership is eaten for lunch.

But maybe you can create a principled set of boundaries to support someone not on board with repair and justice to work within a power-with system until everyone else in it is resilient enough to manage the not-on-board person collectively. Peer pressure can be a beautiful thing. If this is your plan, ongoing training and support for all your teammates to manage and respond to the not-on-board person is a good idea.

It’s not impossible. It just requires thoughtful planning and attention for the entire team to thrive.

This article addressed what maintaining high standards looks like for someone not on board with shifting organizational culture to shared power and accountability. In part two, we’ll look at maintaining high standards for the person who is struggling to actualize these nuanced changes in their day-to-day actions, likely because, in the past, they’ve had a hard time with nuanced day-to-day interactions.

Stay tuned for: High Standards as a Pathway to Justice, Part 2: What about the people who struggle with… people?