A science and philosophy of action, sociodynamics recommends in many cases implementing an “allies strategy” that mobilises the energy of as many people as possible and puts a shared project into practice. But sometimes this strategy runs into a wall of opposition… The sociodynamic body of knowledge and good practice then argue for other choices.
The allies strategy rests on several principles, in particular attention paid above all to “allies”: those who support your project, who take synergistic initiatives and who can also show critical thinking in order to make it evolve. Because what matters is implementation – what is the point of taking a decision, however “intelligent”, if it is not followed by positive effects?
Relying on these allies means fully involving them in decisions, co-constructing shared actions, and securing their very concrete commitment – because if they do not commit but merely nod along servilely, they are probably not “allies”. So it is not just a matter of expecting them to “obey”, but also of taking into account their hesitations, their criticisms, even their occasional opposition. “Followers” are not the best allies you have, because they will not see obstacles coming… And, lacking critical thinking, they will not be able to convince the great mass of the “hesitant”…
Convincing the hesitant
Indeed, the most frequent challenge in sensitive projects is to convince those who hesitate, who doubt, who question… In these contexts, they make up the great mass of stakeholders. Is your decision justified? Are you communicating enough, and in the right way? Are your implementation actions realistic, acceptable, effective? Are they in the general interest? But also: what do you really have in mind? What are your personal objectives? Have you considered failure? And in that case?…
The strategies to adopt with these stakeholders are those of negotiation: accepting their conditions for support, including by adapting your project in return for their participation – because once the initial project, “lateralised” and enriched, also becomes theirs, they become “allies” in fact.
That leaves the “opponents”: those who act against your project, but also in spite of it. Because often the best opposition is not to confront you, but to let you wear yourself out alone. Especially when the context is complex and the situation perilous: because once isolated, you will no longer take enlightened decisions, you will lose all creativity, while waiting for the inevitable exhaustion of your physical, human and intellectual resources… For these opponents, the allies strategy recommends, depending on the context, sidelining or imposition. Don’t waste time with them, and if they must be on board, let them obey!
Marvellously effective as it is, this “allies strategy” can only be fully exercised when it is possible to convince the hesitant, or even to find other allies, and to maintain a balance of power in your favour: with more positive contributions and synergistic commitments than contrary actions – or, let us not forget, actions that take no account at all of your decisions…
In some deadlocked situations, when it is no longer possible – or no longer desirable – to keep doing “more of the same”, it may become necessary to act so that opponents become more synergistic stakeholders: at the very least “grumblers” (they will protest half-heartedly but not act on it), or hesitant ones (whose antagonism has decreased), or even – and it is possible – allies.
To make this shift possible, you will have to dare the “leap of faith”…
The leap of faith
Normally, the “leap of faith” (in French, “saut de l’ange” – the angel’s leap, i.e. a leap of faith) is a dive into the void (or into water)… Arms outstretched, it expresses complete surrender in the face of risk and danger – the acceptance of one’s own vulnerability. So it is not about withstanding the shock, about being the strongest… It is not bravado; it is genuine exposure. But nor is it a suicidal act, because the success of the operation depends either on technical mastery of the dive into water, or on a “rescue” coming from a harness and a bungee cord, or a parachute. And the entry into the water must be fluid, just as the shock of the opening must be absorbed smoothly – one must then adapt to the environment. In both cases, any rigidity will be penalised, all the more severely the higher one started.
In terms of stakeholder strategy, the “leap of faith” is a bold, even courageous, sociodynamic decision. It means choosing to open up to “opponents” (real or supposed).
In a classic allies strategy, this choice would be a mistake. Because by giving them more attention than necessary, you risk legitimising them in the eyes of the hesitant, who will then tip over to their side. And destabilising your allies, frustrated to see that to receive your attention (and in particular your time), showing antagonism is just as effective as – or even more effective than – showing synergy.
This opening is not an attempt to “convince” them in the name of a higher reason or new talking points. Still less to make them “obey” by stepping up injunctions.
Because while the directive mode may be justified in some cases (life-threatening emergencies in particular), this practice has many drawbacks, in particular:
- It takes responsibility away from your allies;
- It strengthens antagonisms by proving them “right” (you are a dictator, since the less people follow you, the more pressure you apply), to the point of justifying hard-line opposition strategies (in the face of increased “repression”, there is nothing left to lose);
- It breaks what little trust, or willingness to talk, the “hesitant” may have (they expect, above all, negotiation).
This mode, which favours imposition, must therefore be limited in time and resources, and followed by efforts to explain and repair lost trust. And this is sometimes in vain, because while trust is easily broken, building it takes time. Were the urgency and the stakes worth it, then?
Choosing to give the benefit of the doubt
The “leap of faith” is a way of giving the other the benefit of the doubt, even if they are hostile: it is a bet that admitting one’s own fragility, even one’s failures, will be met not with revenge but with compassion, in view of higher shared stakes.
Yet the “natural” posture towards opponents is rather to assume bad intentions, to be mistrustful. Daring the leap of faith therefore means giving up all forms of pride or superiority. It probably means putting oneself at risk – but when failure is there, or the cost too high, why not change strategy? It also often means admitting that if decisions have aroused opposition – or a lack of support – they are probably ill-suited, because they do not contribute effectively to an objective that one is convinced can also be shared by those who, until now, were “opponents”. An objective that is at least reformulated and made explicit, to mobilise new stakeholders. And translated into implementation actions that are accepted because they have been defined together, negotiated.
Finally, betting on the leap of faith means choosing to appeal to the other’s intelligence – they will have to be deeply moved by this profoundly human act of voluntarily putting oneself in danger, when it is for the common good.
In change management, the leap of faith is typically a “type 2 change”.
Faced with growing difficulties, the classic strategy – at least in the post-Taylorist tradition – is to harden the implementation of decisions already taken, to shut oneself up in one’s certainties. Procedures are added to procedures, “compliance” rules are tightened, culprits are punished ever more harshly… Always more of the same… This is not resilience, it is resistance… to breaking point (or exhaustion, and therefore death).
Adopting a type 2 strategy means “changing the board” when possible: finding other allies, opening other fronts… But when this is no longer possible, one must act in a radically different way… Taking the leap of faith is that choice. The choice of trust rather than mistrust.
The leap of faith in the service of collective resilience
In a context of major crisis – and of course also in the more traditional context of corporate projects – the power of the sociodynamic body of knowledge is striking. And when it is applied to major crises, it can usefully be compared with a tradition that emerged during the same period (since the late 1970s) and has continued to this day in the theories and practices of safety and human factors.
The traditional approach to safety is that of successive layers: in the face of risks, dangers and threats, physical or organisational walls and procedures are reinforced, and culprits and “weak links” are hunted down – first and foremost humans…
And in an increasingly complex world, technologically and humanly, the “accidents” that emerge in every field lead this tradition to recommend ever more rigorous, even brutal, measures. To rely on the knowledge of “experts” and on ever more detailed procedures, and to sideline as far as possible the “weak link”: humans, with their emotions, doubts and initiatives. Always more of the same… Without results, because hyper-safety does not exist.
With “High Reliability Organisations” and “Resilience Engineering”, recognised professionals in the most sensitive fields (nuclear, transport, oil extraction, healthcare, military operations…) chose an epistemological break – a real “leap of faith”, since their recommendations, applied in life-and-death contexts, could easily be held against them in the event of failure. And yet they did it.
This “leap of faith” means, again and again, choosing people rather than machines or procedures, which are only tools, not ends in themselves. It means trusting, encouraging debate, and questioning – even systematically – acquired certainties or false consensus born of human dynamics. It means seeking creativity, collective intelligence, subsidiarity and everyone’s commitment. It means accepting the risk and fragility of organisations. It means constantly investing in people’s time… People’s time: the time of sociodynamics.
This article was written for the Institut de la Sociodynamique.
Leave a Reply