I think understanding the relationship between micro and macro power is crucial. One can attend collaborative meetings where discussions take place between a variety of people and agreement is seemed to be reach. Then one actions are followed up the situation changes and the influence one thought one had seems to evaporate. This is particularly true when working with the public sector. Sometimes staff do not want to say 'yes' or 'no' to suggestions as their power is limited. You think you have agreement only for macro power to raise its head and we go back again to talking. Micro power agreements can be undermined unless one gets some macro level support.

Recently a number of public sector staff have left a particular institution and once out the system they then talk more openly about collaboration. They themselves feel constrained by internal power relations within their institutions which then is reflected back out into inter-organisational collaboration. 

I've seen many examples in partnership meetings where a forthright individual can have undue influence, if not to change the outcome of a discussion, then to plant considerable seeds of doubt in the minds of others around the table. This influence is stronger still if the individual is speaking from a position of direct experience of the issue under discussion. This could be one individual in a meeting of more than a dozen. While this is an example of micro-power I am not convinced that it automatically leads to better outcomes for the group.

Yes, I think the 'points of power' approach is a useful tool to assess the dynamics of a relationship. Although I don't think any of us are under any illusions as to who holds the purse strings, who will be working at ground level, and so on, I believe having this concept in the front of the mind can help the concept of 'power' be at the forefront. However, I'm not sure exactly how one would be able to tackle some of the macro power dynamics, as they're very entrenched and purposely non-transparent. Having this awareness will make you conscious of your own work of where/who holds the power, by making micro-level changes/decisions, and I guess this could be start to chip away at the macro dynamics. But could micro-level shifts be enough to change macro-level decisions? The previous example video of the MK community neighbourhood group seemed to show this level of empowerment.

 Identifying the "points of power" is a key part of any group debates, challenges and influencing decision making.

Recognising and understanding the words, subjects and manner which touches the heart of others and position of key, but perhaps unspoken, issues is vital if you are to affect the outcome of discussions.  This will include political stand points, areas with which they have a strong affinity, their expertise and knowledge.  Some of these may work related but could be personal.

My role as Grants Manager involves acting as an advocate for funding applicants and presenting to the Trustees and arguing the case to support the applications.  The Trustees have the final decision whether to accept or decline.

So choosing the right words, tone and key themes and defending and challenging the Trustees comments and objections has to be done robustly but without offence because the Trustees have the final say and do not need to give reasons for their decision.  So all presents, written and verbal are thought out, Trustee by Trustee, with their preferences, biases and key areas of focus in mind.  This is as varied as qualified accounts, doctors, head teachers, local councillors.

 You have to identify and address each Trustees point of power, this may be knowledge of financial accounts or camping equipment.  We get requests from scout groups and one of the Trustee runs outward bound trip for schools so will go through the cost of the equipment requiring funding with a tooth comb.

The limitation to this approach is that it can well be over-ruled by the people holding the ultimate resources, internal budgets holders, the Trustees have the ultimate decision of what groups of applicants they are prepared to support and the however good the micro power is executed it may not be enough and could, if not careful, cause resentment and jeopardise future discussions.

Week 7 – Activity 5 Micro Power

It has been fascinating to consider the idea of micro power. I really admire the people that I have read about this week. I’m sure we can all take encouragement from the fact that a small voice at the beginning can make a big difference in the end. I’m thinking of it as; aggregated momentum can force positive revision.

Even though the voluntary sector more generally experiences limitations in steering their own needs when in an inter-organisational collaboration. Where being constrained by bigger public service structures, and where policy and funding objectives are prioritised to meet government policy strategy. It is still better to have a seat at the table where the influence of micro power can be put to work. One needs to be on the inside to establish your key collaborators/individual’s mindset. Whilst you can then begin to make your pitch in a more bespoke way and sow the seeds of change, the push-back is still overwhelmingly in favour of the better resourced collaborator.

Drawing expertise together and gaining access to larger resources however, is a useful exercise and doesn’t deny independent campaigning when not at the table. Being a collaborative social lubricant to keep the wheels turning though, is a crucial medium in influencing forward movement.  

However, all vehicles require servicing. So is it too provocative to suggest that part of the accountability and reporting agenda for public service collaboration, should highlight the Local Government Ombudsman as arbitrator in waiting?

It is useful to acknowledge micro-power and the influence one can have at that level, particularly when dealing with one to one situations.

I think the points of power approach is very helpful to my leadership practice from a number of different perspectives. I believe that organisations do not attend to relationship anywhere near enough and I seek to prioritise and value relationships in my pracitce. I also think it assists in terms of 'noticing' and being alert to discourse and events that have a direct bearing on collaboration and collaborative partnerships that might otherwise have been missed. I find it useful in engaging with people and noticing micro moments that can be discussed in the moment and which add huge value to people's understanding and awareness. One of the few limitations of the approach is that some people get lost in the micro element or elements such that discourse starts to lose meaning and impact. I see many examples of this in the collaborative partnerships of which I am a part.

What inspirational comments and also a lot of large scale examples. I noted the comment about feminism and it reminded me of 2 things - the personal is political and that it only takes a couple of people's commitment to make a vast difference. Both of which made me think about the process of restructuring we have been going through as an organisation and the opportunities for micro power in a process that can make you feel exceedlingly powerless when you are at risk of redundancy. The example is not about inter organisational collaboration but it is about collaboratin within staff teams and what sort of culture is being propagated. I consciously took the view to steer my way through the risk of redundancy procrss in the best possible way for my wellbeing and for other people who will be going through it after my level within the organisation is completed. My micro power moments which had influence were to ask for an equality impact assessment to be completed on the process- I particulary had in mind the people who tend to be vulnerable in those situations - people on maternity leave, carers and people with long term health conditions. I was proactibe in suggesting areas where I could be of use in the future of the organisation and areas where I thougth the new structre wasn't realistic. I negotiated an offer - compromise was required on the organisation and my part and I challenged unacceptable words which were said to me in a meeting. If anything it helped me not to lose my self respect and I felt empowered that even in a compete power differential I was able to exert some control/influenec.