Welcome to this edition of the BDR International Group LLC podcast. These podcasts are the audio version of "Perspectives" that you may find at bdrinternationalgroup.com. This podcast is titled "Allies Need Their Allies, Too." I hope you find it useful.

Allies are very important in nearly all of the work that we do. This may strike some as odd because many think of an ally as someone "needed when..." The reality is "needed when" is usually every day.

Maybe we need to take a look at what is meant by the word "ally." Because there are many levels and types of allies, and to make sure we are sharing the same context, some working definitions are in order.

What Is Meant by the Word "Ally?"

Merriam-Webster defines the noun "ally" as "one that is associated with another as a helper : a person or group that provides assistance and support." This is a good starting point, but it can be limiting depending upon how we define "helper" or "provides assistance and support."

For purposes of this post, a "helper" or someone who "provides assistance and support" will include those who do not get in the way. They may not actively help or assist, but they also do not block. Years ago as a volunteer in an organization in Atlanta sponsored by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), we named this type of ally a "positive neutral." Ideally, we would have appreciated their help, assistance, and support, but we would score it as a win if they did not block.

Getting back to those allies who help, assist, and support, we still need to think broadly. What is a "helper?" Can an "enabler" be included? This word often has a negative connotation, but this negative meaning is not definitive. Merriam-Webster defines "enabler" as "one that enables another to achieve an end." Merriam-Webster does go on to explain how over the last several decades the word is being used in addiction studies to describe a person who helps another person remain in a destructive behavioral pattern, but an enabler can still be positive. For our purposes, an "enabler" will be a positive influence as an ally.

Active and Passive Allies

As mentioned above, I consider a "positive neutral" an ally even though they may be non-committal. I clearly need active allies to help move change forward, but someone who will not block change (positive neutral) is also beneficial which makes them an ally. In reality, a range of allies is okay, and where they fall on a spectrum lets us know if they are an ally or not.

A way to think about this is to use the "Spectrum of Allies tool" developed by Martin Oppenheimer and George Lakey in their book, A Manual for Direct Action: Strategy and Tactics for Civil Rights and All Other Nonviolent Protest Movements. In using this tool, 3 of the 5 pie slices that I consider to be allies are:

1. Active Allies
2. Passive Allies
3. Neutral

while the other 2 pie slices (Passive Opposition, Active Opposition) I consider to be non-allies.

Expanding "Neutral" to the IAF's "positive neutral," this person or group becomes an ally. Any position that does not cause harm is a plus.

"Passive Opposition" and "Active Opposition" are potential allies although there may be no point in trying to move those who are in active opposition. At a minimum, these 2 would need to be moved 1 and 2 pie slices to the left, respectively, in order to become allies.

In an ideal change situation, all people would be in the "Active Allies" slice. This is not reality, nor is it needed to make change happen. In practice, I seek to get a critical mass in the 3 ally slices listed above.

What Are the Types of Allies?

In a workshop, "Allies: Necessary for Culture Change," we ran at the "Women Advance IT: Women Advancing the Future of Information Technology in Higher Education" conference, something we did not expect was the sheer number of types of allies that could be identified. Largely, these types can be grouped into the following categories:

• Advocates
• Cheerleaders
• Mentors
• Power Players
• Stakeholders

Something that had not occurred to me before this conference is how an ally type like me (mentor, advocate, power player) for our gender equity initiative also has allies: cheerleaders, advocates, stakeholders, and power players. This may seem rather obvious, but when recruited as an ally, we may forget that we also need to have allies. Needing allies makes sense as cultural change requires a critical mass of people (enlist a volunteer army) believing in the need for change.

One of the more critical ally types for me was a subset of "cheerleaders." I call these allies "believers." These are allies who believe I have something to offer. This may seem inconsequential, but their belief in me gave me the courage to engage the issue. I may not have had this courage absent the belief in me.

So, my "believers" needed the ally types I could provide, and I needed the ally type they could provide in order to be their ally. Neat circle, is it not?

Ally Types on the Spectrum of Allies

The different ally types may fall across the spectrum of allies. For example, a power player could be in any of the 5 pie slices on the spectrum, but they are truly useful as an ally when they are either an active ally or at least a positive neutral. If the power player is passively or actively opposed, they can cause huge trouble.

As another example, a cheerleader is likely going to be in 1 of the first 3 slices. Their most significant contribution is keeping us energized which is why they are typecast as cheerleaders.

Mapping Your Allies

In order to map your allies and the types of allies they are, you first need to define what it is you are trying to achieve, and then what ally types would be most useful to help accomplish this change.

Once this is done, you would fill in your ally map with the types of allies needed, and the people who may fulfill these types. Keep in mind that one person may show up in several ally types. This is okay.

The handouts from our workshop provide a good reference for you to use as you work through your situation. Be sure to revisit these handouts whenever you would benefit from having allies. Depending upon the situation, the same individual may fulfill the role of a different ally type.

For the text version of this podcast and other "Perspectives" articles, please visit BDR international group.com. Thank you.

3 Questions: 4 Levels of Injustice

Welcome to this edition of the BDR International Group LLC podcast. These podcasts are the audio versions of "Perspectives" that you may find at bdrinternationalgroup.com. This podcast is titled "3 Questions: 4 Levels of Injustice." I hope you find it useful.

Often times, when people attempt to have discussions about injustice, assumptions are made. A game of who has suffered a particular injustice, and who has not is part of the discussion even if this is not apparent. Then, among those who have been determined to have suffered a particular injustice, a game of who has suffered worse begins. These games may be very overt, they may be part of an undercurrent, or they may exist anywhere in between.

Do we know what experience any person may have without asking?

Probably not.

The reality is almost everyone has experienced some form of injustice at some point in their life, and the injustice experienced can be broken down into at least 4 levels.

What Are the 4 Levels of Injustice?

Think of an injustice, and complete the following sentence. This injustice:

has never happened to me. has happened to me one or more times, but not a lot. happens to me on a fairly regular basis. is my daily existence.

Why Do These 4 Levels Matter?

These 4 levels matter because if we do not take into account that some of the injustices we have experienced have been experienced by others in our group, then we cannot have the empathy needed to move the situation forward.

True, for any given injustice, the level a particular person falls into may be different from our own experience. Empathy is not about who is higher or lower on the levels of injustice; rather, empathy is about being able to relate to the experience. Once a person can relate to another person's experience, they can imagine what it may be like at a different level on the scale.

If we do not think others in a group have suffered a similar injustice to our own, then we may expect that they have no authority to speak on a particular issue. The reality may be many people in the group have the authority to speak on the issue because they have suffered a similar injustice. What they may not have is the depth of experience that others in the group may have around that particular issue.

An example of this is one from my own life. If the discussion is about workplace environment, many people do not know that I have been sexually harassed by a boss. This is something that happened to me many years ago when I was in my twenties, but it was a case where my female boss came up to me, pulled my shirt out, looked down, and said she just wanted to see my chest and my body, and what shape my body was in.

Of course, at the time I was stunned and did not really react other than to stand there dumbfounded. The situation never escalated beyond that, nor do I recall any future issues with that particular person, so I am not claiming some kind of "poor me" type of situation. The point is many people would never think that sexual harassment could happen to a 6 foot, 1 inch white male. Many think I cannot possibly know what it is like to be sexually harassed. And if I do not know what it is like to be sexually harassed, I cannot participate in the discussion. I cannot possibly understand. I cannot empathize.

There are several other instances of sexual harassment I have experienced throughout my professional life, but the story I describe is the first one I recognized as sexual harassment. I am not trying to minimize the pain and suffering others have gone through or are currently experiencing. I am saying I have direct experience with being sexually harassed.

Referring to the four levels of injustice, I would rate my experience with sexual harassment as a number 2. That is to say sexual harassment "happened to me one or more times, but not a lot." Why bother telling a story like this to a group working on workplace environment? The reason is so people in the group understand I have some direct experience with the topic as opposed to a theoretical understanding of the broader issue of workplace environment. I may be lacking this direct experience in the current workplace, but my story still helps to develop empathy among all involved, and this can move the group forward.

What Can I Do?

The first thing to do when considering your own stories and where they fit into the levels of injustice is to make sure that you are not trying to prove you have suffered more than others whether you have or not. The idea is to be able to find a connection with the rest of the group so the group's energy and efforts may be put toward solving the situation and/or changing the culture. The goal is to make life better.

Whether in a group setting or with another individual where you are trying to address some kind of injustice, keep the 4 Levels of Injustice in mind and ask yourself:

What have they experienced that I have not? What have they experienced that I have experienced? How can I use their level of injustice to develop empathy? How can I use my level of injustice to develop empathy? Introducing your experience to someone else or a group does take a sense of timing on your part. Be careful not to introduce your experience when:

it may appear you are starting a game of who has suffered worse. you may appear to be minimizing the experience of someone else. If I am not guiding the group, but I am participating as a member, I wait to introduce my experience until I am challenged by someone else in the group. It is possible the group may be accepting of my participation without hearing my story. If I am challenged, I tell my story without any intent of knocking down the person who challenged me. Injustice can wound people to their core, so I take them at their best. My experience has been they respond positively to my stories.

If you are guiding the group, you may ask for volunteers to tell a story from their lives, and you may offer yours to open the discussion. Do not force anyone to talk if they do not want to. The 4 levels of injustice have dramatically different impacts on each person, and no 2 people experience the same level the same way.

Keep in mind the ultimate goal is to move the situation forward in a positive manner. Life should improve rather than get worse.

For the text version of this podcast and other "Perspectives" articles, please visit bdrinternationalgroup.com. Thank you.

3 Questions: It Is Common Sense That There Is No Common Sense

Depending upon common sense in others is certain to lead to frustration. Do not let this happen to you.

Why Is There No Common Sense?

We often use the phrase "common sense" when we are baffled as to why someone or some group did something counter to what everyone should just know. Have we ever stopped to ask why this person or group did not know what they were supposed to know? Are they really that stupid? Perhaps they are, but chances are good what we thought was "common" was not so common after all. Perhaps it is only common among a smaller group of people like a community.

But How Does a Community Have Common Sense?

A community does not have common sense. Instead, a community builds common sense by creating a cultural sense or context. This is done through peer norming which is nothing more than reinforcing desired behaviors and practices while shunning undesired behaviors and practices.

Because one community may have a different set of desired behaviors and practices from another, what "should" be common may become uncommon.

Communities can be of almost any size. For example, a group at work may develop its own accepted behaviors and practices which "anyone should know." Except that "anyone" does not because they have not been part of the cultural sense. At least, that is until peer norming sets them "straight."

What Does This Mean for Diversity?

If you are a person who embraces diversity in the broadest sense, that is diversity includes race, gender, age, nationality, geographical differences (e.g., upper Midwest, the Deep South), etc., then you probably already have a sick feeling. Diversity can throw "common sense" on its head.

Peer norming that creates the cultural sense that we mistake for common sense runs counter to what diversity brings to us. This is not to say that our norms are wrong or bad. I am suggesting that our norms are simply "our norms." These norms can exist without judgement. In fact, they often do. How often do we question our norms?

Not all is lost when common sense runs up against diversity. The key is to become aware of when our "common sense" is not so common, and that we should then examine the value of the common sense item in question. Embracing diversity gives us the opportunity to create a modified cultural sense—one that incorporates elements of the different groups involved.

This modified cultural sense becomes our new common sense until it becomes modified again.

Which I did not have to tell you, because it is just common sense that everyone knows this.

For ways to mitigate the problems that arise when working with diverse people or groups, please refer to "Are We Sharing the Same Context?" at bdrinternationalgroup.com.

For the text version of this podcast and other "Perspectives" articles, please visit bdrinternationalgroup.com. Thank you.

Share this:

Welcome to this edition of the BDR International Group LLC podcast. These podcasts are the audio versions of "Perspectives" that you may find at bdrinternationalgroup.com. This podcast is titled "3 Questions: Stuck With Few or No Good Options." I hope you find it useful.

This topic comes from a situation where we are working with a person who, although a good person, has over the years displayed a kind of bipolar professional behavioral pattern. I am not suggesting that this person is bipolar. Instead, I am suggesting that their professional behavior appears to be a dichotomy; that is to say hot or cold, and without any warning signs that we have been able to read which way the person is going to go.

For many years this was a workable situation, but now the person is in a position that appears to be amplifying this behavior, and the behavior has implications for the work our group does.

So the first question is:

How Do We Work in This Environment?

By "this environment," I mean any environment that appears to be less than optimal. We have tried multiple meetings to address the issues, but it appears these meetings go nowhere. The person in question agrees to a particular course of action, but then the action that follows is contrary to what was agreed upon—sometimes. This, of course, confuses us, and we do not know how to proceed.

Worse, the actions taken by this other person reflect upon us, and we have to then negotiate the fallout with our other partners.

The goal is to create a strategy that allows us to work effectively in this environment because we cannot or are unable to make any effective change.

What Strategy Can Work?

This is the big question. Figuring out a strategy to work in an environment that is less than optimal, particularly an environment where unsuccessful attempts have been made to change, is very difficult to figure out. A challenge to figuring out the correct path forward is that no path is going to be optimal. Rather, the path to use is the one that mitigates the negative effects as much as possible. In our situation, mitigation is the strategy. The reason for this strategy is there are many complex layers and other entities involved that need to be considered. Recognizing that mitigation is the strategy gets us past continually attempting to change the environment with no success.

We will continue to attempt to address the issues, but we no longer expect this to be the strategy. Any fallout that may occur, with this individual or our other partners, we will have to mitigate at that point.

Why Is Mitigation an Acceptable Strategy?

This is a good question. This situation is made up of many and continually moving parts. Because of this, we do not have a simple answer that would work other than to manage the issues as they occur.

We have thought through many scenarios, and we have planned for how we may handle those different scenarios. Even then, we may run into a scenario that we had not anticipated. This is a case where we must recognize the situation in front of us, and alter our reactions as the situation unfolds. This requires us to rely upon our interpersonal skills—something that is critical for many jobs.

Although this approach is not optimal, it does provide a path to move forward. I wish life were more direct and more simple. The reality is it is not.

For the text version of this podcast and other "Perspectives" articles, please visit bdrinternationalgroup.com. Thank you.

Welcome to this edition of the BDR International Group LLC podcast. These podcasts are the audio versions of "Perspectives" that you may find at bdrinternationalgroup.com. This podcast is titled "Are We Sharing the Same Context?" I hope you find it useful.

Our language fails us. Worse, our "common" language fails us. It lulls us into a false sense of complacency—that what we said is what was heard. That what was heard was what we meant. That everything will go according to plan because we all agreed when we were talking together.

Context matters.

Big time.

When we do not share the same context, we are almost guaranteed there will be misunderstandings. Even when we share the same context, we must be explicit to avoid misunderstandings. Several experiences over the past couple of years brought this home to me.

Common Sense (Is Not So Common)

Perhaps the biggest universal failing of our language is the phrase "common sense." The problem is not in using the phrase. The problem is common sense does not exist. Cultural sense exists, or, more precisely, a constructed sense within a group exists. Clifford Geertz points this out in his essay "Common Sense as a Cultural System" in Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. As everyone knows, it is just common sense not to argue with Clifford Geertz.

How many of you know of Clifford Geertz? I did not until I started putting together this piece. I had arrived at everything humans do is a social construct some years ago when I found out biology went from the 2 kingdoms I learned about in high school to 6 kingdoms. Did anyone ask Nature what it thought about this development? How many humans believe there are 6 kingdoms (or 8)? Does it matter? I made it about 25 years without any issue basking in the ignorance of 2 kingdoms.

So what is my point here? That the emphasis is on "common" when talking about "common sense." That cultural context is what helps determine what is common.

Context as a Builder of "Common"

Instead of expecting people to have some "common sense," we should create a shared context for whatever the particular interaction is about. Clearly, not all interactions rise to the level of requiring a shared context. Instead, we should only create a shared context for anything we care about. And by "care about," I mean if we are going to get upset about the outcome being different than we desired, we did "care about" it.

We should have created a shared context.

Creating a shared context may not require anything more than asking what everyone thinks something means. An example would be asking, "What does 'critical thinking' mean to you? What does it look like?" Among the answers we will likely find commonality as well as divergence. We need to highlight both, and we need to resolve those meanings that are divergent. We do not need people to be in agreement to the extent they change their personal definition, but we do need them to agree to a working definition for the group task at hand.

Another example would be asking what "collaboration" means and looks like. Some may say that an example of collaboration would be 4 people each writing a chapter in a book. Others may say the 4 people would work together writing and editing each others contributions to all 4 chapters. Both are correct, and both are wrong—depending upon the context. But mixing the 2 without sharing the context first is lethal to the viability of the group.

What if we had the expectation that the people we are working with on a project had the same availability as we do, and what would happen if reality were different from our expectation? What would happen to the project? What would happen to the relationships?

By abandoning the notion "common sense" is common, and working toward a shared context at the beginning of a collaboration, we can reduce the frustration and dysfunction that will occur with any project involving people.

Resolving Differing Cultural Contexts

Not sharing a common definition is one problem, but not sharing a common culture is an order of magnitude thornier. Now you may be thinking that I am referring to cultures in the sense of regions or nationalities. These do present challenges, but we often are at least aware that differences may exist. For example, an American working on a project with an Italian would likely notice differences exist as would the Italian. How well these cultural differences are resolved depends upon a variety of factors, but at least they are noticed.

The differing cultural contexts I am referring to are those that exist between what appear to be similar cultural groups, but their working cultures are different. In higher ed, an example would be the differing cultures of faculty and staff. When these 2 groups interact on projects, the cultural contexts brought to the project are vastly different, and if a common context is not established, the ride will be bumpier than necessary.

An example of this is what constitutes a workday. Prior commitments aside, what expectation exists that the group could meet on a Friday afternoon at 3 PM? What about meeting during Spring break? Is the break a week away from classes for students, a vacation for faculty, and anything other than just another week of work for staff? What cultural assumptions are brought to the table under the guise of "common sense?" Please note I am not suggesting any particular way of thinking about this is correct. I am suggesting that not having a conversation at the beginning of a project about expectations has serious consequences.

Finding a Threshold

At this point, you may be thinking that you need to find a common context on nearly everything you do. In practice, we all need to find what is an acceptable threshold for establishing a common context. Some things matter more than others, but unless we figure out what things truly matter versus those that do not, we have a tendency to stumble across our threshold. If you have gotten angry about an outcome because other people did something other than you expected of them, but you did not create a common context first, you have crossed your threshold.

Can you let go of some things so you may set your threshold higher? What is truly important to you in the big scheme of things?

Keep in mind, sharing a culture allows us to move through the day without having to negotiate many "standards" such as:

• how close people can stand together before invading personal space.
• if looking a person in the eye is acceptable or not.

What if you had to negotiate these? Would you negotiate these? Maybe they do not matter to you, or they do not matter so much. This is finding your threshold, and it is important to do. Every interaction you need to negotiate will take energy, and you only have so much energy in a day. The great challenge is in finding what you can let go of. We tend to cling to things that really do not matter, but we view them as essential to being alive. How is it other people can let go of these same things that trigger us to react?

I am not suggesting you should give up everything that is important to you, or even many things that are important to you. I am suggesting you reflect on why these things are important to you. Doing this will help you identify where you need to establish a shared context as well as giving you a way to explain to others why something is important to you. As you explain to others why a particular way of doing things is important to you, they may be able to offer another way that still accommodates your basic need. This is finding a shared context.

Steps for Establishing a Shared Context

When working with another person or group that you have not set a shared context with before, be sure to:

1. find your threshold for what matters.
2. find out what others mean when they think of, for example, "collaboration" (if this is an item above your threshold). Ask them to describe what "collaboration" looks like.
3. avoid arguments over the "correct" definition. You are wanting to establish a working definition for any interactions. The people involved only need to agree this is what the definition will be for this group's purposes, including you. They can go back to their "correct" definition everywhere else.
4. keep people to the working definition. If they appear to be straying from what was agreed, ask them how what they are doing fits with the agreed upon working definition.
5. watch for other items that may be above your threshold, but were not negotiated. You may need to negotiate them as they occur.
6. be open to renegotiation. The working definition may need to change as the project or relationship progresses. Life is dynamic.

For the text version of this podcast and other "Perspectives" articles, please visit bdrinternationalgroup.com. Thank you.

Welcome to this edition of the BDR International Group LLC podcast. These podcasts are the audio versions of "Perspectives" that you may find at bdrinternationalgroup.com.

This podcast is titled "3 Questions: Affective, Cognitive Argument."

I hope you find it useful.

What Is an Affective Argument?

An affective argument is one that speaks to our gut, to our heart. This is the kind of argument where a person may "think" that it does not strike them right. "Strike them right" is a feeling. People typically react from their gut first, so if our arguments are not aimed towards the affective, we are simply losing out.

Now, I know some people think that they are reacting from their minds, but the chances are very good their feelings got involved first and informed their minds. This all happens very quickly, so it is easy to "think" we are reacting from our minds. Remember, it strikes the gut, the heart first, and then rushes into the mind.

What Is a Cognitive Argument?

A cognitive argument is one that speaks to the mind. This is the kind of argument we often carefully craft so that no one can argue against it. It is airtight. Emotion has been removed. Or so we think. Again, chances are very good others are reacting from their affective sides first. Do not lose hope! If we address their affective side first, we soften them up for the cognitive follow-up. Both are important.

What Is an Example Argument Combining Both Affective and Cognitive?

Probably the shortest, most incredibly effective affective, cognitive argument all rolled into one are these three simple words: you know me. You know me. When we say these words to another person, we are actually touching them in their gut, in their heart first. All their experiences with us come pouring out, so hopefully the experiences are more good than bad.

Instantly, the feelings spread out into the brain, and they start thinking about such things as how we do great work on time, are enjoyable to be around, etc. They can also be thinking about how we are such a pain to deal with, or that our work is substandard. Three very powerful words.

The key to any argument we want to be as effective as possible is to address the affective side first, and then follow up with the cognitive. Just remember:

You know me.

For the text version of this podcast and other "Perspectives" articles, please visit bdrinternationalgroup.com. Thank you.

Welcome to this edition of the BDR International Group LLC podcast. These podcasts are the audio versions of "Perspectives" that you may find at bdrinternationalgroup.com. This podcast is titled "3 Questions: Shared Context." I hope you find it useful.

3 Questions: Shared Context What Is a Shared Context?

A shared context is one where the individual or group of people you are with have the same understanding of the words that are being used. An example is "the end of business." Does this mean 4:30 PM? 8 PM? Some other time? Unless we define it and come to some agreement with the individual or the group, we are not sharing a context.

How Is a Shared Context Helpful?

A shared context is helpful because it can mitigate many misunderstandings. When people do not share the same context, they do not have the same expectations from the words that are used. This can lead to misunderstandings that can negatively impact the project. In addition, misunderstandings can lead to damaged relationships creating future problems.

How Do I Create a Shared Context?

Creating a shared context starts by assuming that you do not have one to begin with. This is one of the more difficult problems to overcome. We want to believe that the words we use have the meaning that we think they have. Any concept or word that you find important is one where you need to examine with the person or group what they believe it means.

Creating context is not about who is right or who is wrong. It is about coming to an agreement for the concept or word for that particular situation or project. An example would be that everyone agrees "end of business" means 5 PM. Better yet, everyone comes to agreement to use a specific time like "5 PM" instead of end of business.

For the text version of this podcast and other "Perspectives" articles, please visit bdrinternationalgroup.com. Thank you.