Week 5 Generating good challenge in collaborative leadership

Introduction

This week takes the provocative step of arguing that we need more challenges to our leadership. By challenge we mean those conflictual interventions where people in organisations push and question one another. Challenge is often something people shy away from, that they think of in negative terms, as associated with arguments and general unpleasantness. This is true up to a point. We will not be talking about very personal challenges, or challenges that are conducted to undermine people behind their backs. Such conflict makes for toxic organisations, where none of us want to work.

Instead, this week is going to address the importance of constructive challenges – a form of conflict that opens new possibilities. Such challenges are usually targeted at issues that matter for organisations, or at issues that should matter for organisations. In addition, challenges are also connected strongly to identity – this is because good challenges inevitably mean that you are exploring the gaps and limitations in the way each of us sees the world. Good challenges stretch identity and leadership practice.

You could read the material this week as a manager who wishes to manage a more challenging ethos of collaborative leadership amongst teams and partnerships; you could read the material as someone who wants to generate more challenge in a hands-on way; or you could read the material with both ends in mind.

This week will be broken into two sections. The first will address ways in which we can generate good challenges within organisations – in our discussions with colleagues and as a means of stretching and improving upon ideas and values. This is about viewing challenging as an everyday practice. The second will address challenging as something that happens between organisations, in particular, in the relationship between voluntary organisations and government. This is about approaching challenging as a guiding ethos.

By the end of this week you will be able to:

• define agonism and agonistic challenge in the context of the voluntary sector
• experiment with agonistic practices at work
• reflect on your experiences and plan for future agonistic practice
• reflect on the potential for agonism as an ethos that can inform the relationship between the voluntary sector and other organisations.

Figure 1 Good conflict is central to the healthy functioning of organisations and society.

Show description|Hide description

This is a photograph of protestors on Wall Street, New York, in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007/2008.

Figure 1 Good conflict is central to the healthy functioning of organisations and society.

1 Ellen reflects on the challenge of offering robust challenge

Before you get started, listen to this audio extract from Ellen of Family Time.

Download this audio clip.Audio player: declvo_1_audio_week5_ellen.mp3

Show transcript|Hide transcript

Transcript

ELLEN

Meetings-- we all say we dislike them, but we all still have so many of them, don't we? Meetings could be really good opportunities for people to have a say, for being fair and open with people. I'm not sure that's really the case, though. They can be as much about covering yourself, about showing others that you're following procedures. And they can be so-- what's the word-- technocratic? Caught up in the details of this or that spreadsheet.

And that stuff's important-- the facts, the evidence. But I sometimes wonder if we're so caught up in that that people feel like they're incapable of speaking up. It's because it's a different language, isn't it? Numbers, acronyms, all of that.

I've been sitting here thinking about two meetings this week. The first of them was with my team at Family Time. We were discussing our financial position. And I took the team through loads of spreadsheets, our five year plan, all of it-- very technical, but essential.

And things are looking pretty good. We're diversified in our funding, which just means that if one or two things go wrong we will at least still exist. There was mostly silence from people, of course-- the odd small technical question, all very smooth. Part of me was relieved by that, because less questions means less headaches.

But I admit that part of me also wanted to face a bit more challenge. The team can be very polite, even deferential sometimes. There are a lot of hard questions that could have been asked, decisions we've made-- well, decisions, mostly I've made, to be honest-- that are not perfect. Don't know if they're right or wrong-- could go either way.

But what happens if I fall under a bus tomorrow? I want the team to challenge me more. Which sounds odd, doesn't it really? That I want my life made harder.

The thing is, though-- I really need people to be a bit less polite to me. I want them to argue the toss. A lot of this is my fault, I suppose, because it's natural that people are intimidated by the boss. But how do I show them that it's OK-- in fact, it's really quite welcome-- to have a bit of a row about stuff.

We all care about this organisation and the work that it does. So why don't we just show it and bring our passions and our fears to the table? I'll never take that personally, even though I know many managers would. I just think of it as being good practise.

And then there was the second meeting. Well, so, we're in this partnership with the local authority, the police, the local health board, a couple of other charities, and even the football club is in there. And the point of it is around parenting and doing some intervention work early on. It's because, well, some parents struggle. That's life, isn't it?

And they don't always trust the official authorities coming through with their forms and procedures. It must feel really threatening. So we do more informal work-- support stuff. We're their critical friends, I suppose. We do role models, provide information, try and make the whole thing a bit more fun.

And the thing is that this partnership is great-- well, good anyway. But it's only come about, if we're honest, because of cuts to the existing services, things like our children centre that were actually crucial. We're trying our best to make this work and actually talking more than we used to together, bringing in volunteers, people who want to do stuff for their community, from retired grandads and grans to football players. But if I'm being honest, we don't cover anywhere near as much as when there were more funds available and there was more structure.

Our meetings, though, they're very task-focused. Great. We need to deliver good services-- that's crucial. But I get the feeling a lot of the time that there's this huge elephant in our meeting room. And it's really big, believe me. It's got bells on it. Someone's painted it with bright yellow food dye. It's a conspicuous thing, all right.

That elephant is that we're all being really nice about where we are, constructive, and getting on with the job. But don't we also have a responsibility to shout out about what these cuts have really done to struggling families, to the kids? And it's dicey stuff, because we're not politicians. I'm pretty much a swing voter, actually.

I do feel, though, that we see things. And we have great knowledge about what's really going on and could be using it to be more, well, more blimming awkward, I suppose, to have that voice-- that voice that nobody wants to listen to but that voice that needs to be heard-- and take people on, really campaign for more and for better for those children.

Anyway, that's that. Time for more reflection, I think.

End transcript

Download

 

In this extract, Ellen reflects on challenge within her organisation and external to it. She wants her staff to be bolder in terms of how they talk to her and how they relate to her: to be more open about what they stand for and believe in. Such an approach, she hopes, would lead to more helpful insights and ideas. Ellen recognises that she could do more to create the kind of culture and atmosphere that would enable such ways of working but needs to reflect more on how a more challenging workplace might be achieved. Equally, she is frustrated that some of the bigger picture issues her organisation is concerned with are not being addressed. Ellen wants her collaboration to be more challenging, in terms of the people around the table pushing one another more, but is rightly nervous about how to go about doing so.

Before getting underway with the two sections on challenge in practice, we will introduce the basic concept of challenge for voluntary organisations, outlining a perspective known as ‘agonism’ as a useful way for thinking about the issues ahead.

2 Introducing agonsim

The idea of agonism originates in political studies (Connolly, 2002 and 2005; Honig, 1993; Mouffe, 2009 and 2013), but does hold wider implications for voluntary organisations and the voluntary sector. Agonism does, in fact, have implications for any organisation that has some kind of community focus or advocacy role. The critique posed by agonists is that too much of politics and public life is concerned with finding consensus and seeking harmony. For example, Mouffe (2009) is critical of New Labour for trying to collapse ideological differences between left and right. What Mouffe (2013) calls the ‘passions’ of politics are vital for any kind of political engagement – party politics, community politics or organisational politics – and too much of politics, in her view, suppresses these feelings and commitments.

The result, one could argue, is the occasional explosion of antagonism. Note here the difference between antagonism and agonism. Antagonism refers to hostilities between people who do not share the same basic foundational commitment to the norms and practices of liberal democracy. This means freedom of expression, some kind of expectation of participation in civic life, the right to vote and certain basic human rights.

Mouffe’s argument is that repressing the differences between ideologies or moral commitments leads to a build-up of resentment that can explode in unpredictable and even violent ways. As grievances, differences and fears are not aired, they fester and are then channelled in occasional violent outbursts (violent in linguistic and/or physical terms). For example, the UK referendum on membership of the EU also witnessed a parallel increase in the number of reported race hate crimes. We could debate the causes of such acts and feelings all week, but the important thing here is not the ideological vehicle for antagonism, nor its roots, but to note the fact of its existence.

Thinking about antagonism inside organisations, it is common for deep concerns to be silenced or for people to assume in advance that they should not voice their grievances openly. The outcome is often more insidious than open disagreement and conflict: a gnawing cynicism that grips people’s identifications with their organisations and those in charge.

Agonism, then, is a directing of conflict in democratic ways. Its starting premise is that each person engaged in an agonistic process holds a basic belief in liberal-democratic norms (Mouffe, 2013). We might disagree ferociously but, when all is said and done, we respect one another’s right to oppose and to speak up. We live to fight another day.

Agonism also has a strong identity dimension. As all of our identities can be thought of as incomplete and dynamic, agonists argue that it is important that we engage in debate and conflict that challenges passionately held beliefs. In this way, an agonistic conflict can appear as quite intense because it can involve questioning the relevance or ethical robustness of someone’s strongly held identity in relation to a particular issue, and staking a claim for an alternative identity. As hinted at in Week 3, agonism also emphasises the importance of being critical of one’s own identity, of coming to terms with its limits and being prepared to explore alternative positions.

In conclusion, agonism is both an ethos and a practice. It is a practice because it describes a way of going about our everyday work. It is an ethos in that it can inform this practice but also a stance and strategy towards other organisations, including government.

3 Generating challenge within the organisation

This section deals with challenge within organisations, discussing ways in which we can encourage and develop more and better challenge. Before we proceed, think about the last time you decided not to speak up about something that was important to you at work. Was this an opportunity lost? Or did you find an alternative way of approaching the issue? Further, when was the last time you actively went looking for a dissenting opinion within your organisation? Did this opinion add anything valuable to your thinking?

It is our view that organisations need far more constructive conflict. We do all hold different views and come to work with different expectations about what our organisation is there to do. Little is gained by sitting on these concerns. In fact, organisations where there is little challenge can be dissatisfying and boring places, places where important things are left unsaid.

We are pragmatists and recognise that relating to one another in agonistic ways might not always be possible. In our other course, Introducing leadership in voluntary organisations, we discussed the issue of narcissism amongst leaders. It is certainly the case that narcissists, who are very sensitive to any kind of criticism, would find an agonistic approach intolerable. Others of you might be worried about falling out with colleagues or about the kind of time adopting this agonistic approach might eat up. We are sensitive to all of these issues. In relation to narcissistic bosses, agonism need not only be a process engaged in with those at senior levels but can also be practiced between peers. In terms of the other two concerns, the next section discusses some practical ways in which you can instigate more agonistic challenge within the organisation.

4 Getting on with agonistic challenge

The most obvious way in which you can instigate more agonistic challenge in your workplace is introducing the practice into meetings and also into informal conversations. The next time you think a discussion or meeting is falling flat, why not try a more conflictual approach? Say out loud that you disagree with something or that something is making you feel uncomfortable or express a contrary view. Of course, you might want to share with colleagues in advance that you have decided to adopt this strategy as a result of this course, so that they know you’re not being difficult for no apparent reason.

You could set time aside in people’s diaries in order to have a proper debate about an issue. Ask people in advance to prepare cases, rooted in evidence, experience and good ethical reasoning. Such sessions can be formally structured, as you would in an organised debate, or be much more informal, with the general expectation that there will be some good natured challenge taking place. You might want to conduct such a session away from the normal meeting room, in order to symbolise a different space and dynamic. Finally, you would want this debate to really be about something that matters to people. Holding a debate about something most people accept or about something trivial risks undermining the process and making it seem synthetic.

If you are working on a project that means a lot to you but is also challenging, you could adopt a critical friend to provide you with tough feedback. A Masters project that course co-author, Owain, recently marked was based around a large change project at a university concerning childcare. The student concerned very cleverly identified the biggest sceptic within the organisation and made a point of meeting this person frequently throughout the project in order to debate the issue and receive feedback. The point here is not to try to convince sceptics that they are incorrect but to genuinely be open to an alternative point of view. It also helps if this person is capable of such engagement.

Recognise power differentials and adapt your strategy accordingly. Not everyone is equal in terms of power and status within most organisations and certainly not everyone within any organisation feels equal in terms of power and status. If you are in a senior position or able to influence the culture of an organisation, then you do need to bear power differentials in mind. Some people will simply not feel safe in expressing their views publicly and agonistically. You need to seek out alternative ways of encouraging people to speak up. People need to feel safe and valued before they can express themselves. You might consider smaller-scale and informal ways of encouraging people to express challenging viewpoints or model such practice and invite them to do likewise. Or, an agonistic approach might just not be for everyone – some people prioritise other things in their lives other than work, come to work to quietly get on with it and would rather not get any more involved. This is their right and it is proper that their wishes are respected.

Assign someone a conflictual role. This is a sub-optimal strategy as it suggests that disagreement should be something that is manufactured. Nevertheless, if an organisation is unaccustomed to behaving in agonistic ways, assigning someone a role of challenge-generator can be a useful first step. They can adopt this role in meetings or even informally.

5 Working with challenge outside your organisation

Our attention now turns to challenge and the relationship of voluntary organisations to other organisations. We will specifically address the issue of campaigning. Campaigning can, and we argue should, involve a high degree of challenge. After all, a campaign exists in order to change a status quo in one way or another – the very purpose of a campaign is to challenge something. In particular, we are going to ask what it means for a voluntary organisation to be in agonistic relations with others: how might we think about campaigning differently in this light?

There has been much controversy within the sector concerning both how organisations relate to government and the role of the sector in providing a critical voice in relation to government policy. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 (and who said government legislation was lacking catchy titles?) has been controversial, with well aired claims that the Act has resulted in a muzzling of the sector’s voice in relation to government policy and that the government (at the time of writing) has been sensitive and over-reacted to valid concerns. In turn, the government has claimed that it is simply trying to focus charitable organisations on delivering for their particular causes.

The Civil Exchange (2016) has been particularly vociferous in claiming that the voluntary sector’s independence has become compromised. Such a compromising of the sector’s status and position can be tracked, so the argument goes, to a greater role played by voluntary organisations as providers of services previously delivered more directly by government. The Civil Exchange’s (2016) report particularly highlights ‘no advocacy’ clauses in grants awarded via taxpayer resources as problematic for the sector. This is because it is claimed that such clauses will prevent charities from voicing concern about issues that matter to their users. Civil Exchange director Caroline Slocock, launching the report, staked her view that the sector needed an alternative, agonistic (although she did not use this word directly) approach:

The idea of agonism, we argue, provides one way of thinking through the challenges and opportunities of the sector in discovering an independent voice. The language of partnership, so common in the New Labour years, was welcome in one sense, in that it encouraged the voluntary sector to work more closely with government in order to tackle some major issues. On the other hand, as discussed earlier, this language of harmony can actually be counter-productive. This is because it can conceal a range of legitimate grievances and can also dampen the role and importance provided to critique within a society.

So how might a more agonistic sector manifest? We do not pretend to have the solutions, but can start to frame the discussion.

5.1 The Trussell Trust and campaigning

The Trussell Trust is an interesting example of an organisation that has maintained a high degree of independence, providing trenchant critique of the government’s policies in relation to poverty in the UK. The Trust won the Overall Award at the 2016 Civil Society Awards, with the chair of the judges praising the organisation for its ‘constructive’ work with government and its campaigning.

Nevertheless, the evening witnessed some drama as the Trust’s chief executive, David McAuley, in accepting the award took the opportunity to challenge the UK government. He said:

This episode is perhaps characteristic of a debate concerning poverty and foodbanks in the UK that has become highly politicised. Labour politicians believe there is a legitimate case to answer regarding the impact of austerity and Conservatives believe that these problems are not new and that Labour has hijacked and amplified the issue. Is such politicisation a bad thing though? Is the generation of a great deal of political heat around issues something that should be avoided? Not necessarily.

An agonistic approach to collaborative leadership in the voluntary sector does not simply suggest a more challenging approach behind closed doors, but also opens the possibility that organisations can learn to be more vociferous in public as well.

An agonistic approach might involve actively campaigning for or against certain things that organisations know will run counter to a particular government’s prevailing political preferences. Collaborative leadership need not mean bringing others with you in a consensual relationship, and could mean persuading others of the urgency of a problem or solution in conflictual ways.

In practice, organisations should consider a balanced approach that adopts strategies of agonistic challenge, but also ways of ‘quietly’ influencing government and other organisations from the inside.

That said, agonism provides an alternative ethos to that of partnership and it is worth reflecting on what such an approach might mean in practice. This is precisely what you will do in the closing activity of the week.

Figure 2

Show description|Hide description

A man in a green jumper is holding a tin in his left hand. He is standing by a shelf full of boxes of food. This photo represents one of the Trussel Trust foodbanks.

Figure 2

Week 5 quiz

Check what you’ve learned this week by taking the end-of-week quiz.

Week 5 quiz

Open the quiz in a new window or tab then come back here when you’ve finished.

Summary of Week 5

This week discussed challenge and, specifically, the need for more of it in our work. We introduced the idea of agonism, a channelling of our passions and even antagonisms in ways that are consistent with a liberal-democratic philosophy and approach.

Introducing the idea of challenge within organisations, we made the case that such challenge can be a constructive and useful device, even if it is frequently uncomfortable, and discussed some ways in which we can make our work more challenge-friendly.

The week concluded with a discussion of agonism in its broader context, that of the sector as a whole. Approaching the notion of sector independence and the campaigning work of voluntary organisations, we asked whether agonism provided a useful counter (or supplement) to partnership as an ethos informing how the sector interacts and plans its relations with external organisations.

Now go to Week 6.

Keep on learning

References

Acknowledgements

This free course was written by Owain Smolović Jones and Carol Jacklin-Jarvis.

Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence.

The material acknowledged below is Proprietary and used under licence (not subject to Creative Commons Licence). Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this free course:

Images

Figure 1: © A. Golden, eyewash design - c. 2008 in Flickr https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/

Figure 2: courtesy: © The Trussell Trust/ Alexandra Smart

Every effort has been made to contact copyright owners. If any have been inadvertently overlooked, the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.

Don't miss out

If reading this text has inspired you to learn more, you may be interested in joining the millions of people who discover our free learning resources and qualifications by visiting The Open University – www.open.edu/ openlearn/ free-courses.