A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of taking part in an “expedition” organised by the Institut de la Sociodynamique. Personally, the day reminded me of three useful (and indispensable) keys to sparking and sustaining the collective dynamics that so many companies are looking for. Because that is my job: supporting them in this, by fostering the engagement of as many people as possible and productive interactions between stakeholders.
When it comes to setting people in motion, the body of knowledge and practices of sociodynamics is an extremely rich source of inspiration – for mobilising individuals on the one hand, and for animating organisations on the other. “Managing relationships” cannot be separated from the “science of organisations”, and no one can be a management consultant without also mastering the wide variety of possible organisations. And vice versa – otherwise one risks designing “ideal” organisations that, in the end, will not work.
Sociodynamics is a vast and fertile body of thought, and it cannot easily be summed up. So here, modestly, are three keys that may open many doors – for reflection and, above all, for action!
Set the objective of the dynamic you want
It may seem obvious, but when we seek engagement, it is in the service of a given objective. We do not seek engagement for its own sake…
Setting the objective of a mobilisation is therefore obvious, once you think about it. Yet it is often neglected, deliberately or not. We focus on the means (“mobilisation”, “engagement”) and not enough on the expected result. It is a classic, which conveniently allows people to disclaim responsibility for the effects that were not achieved. Objectives of means versus objectives of results: a great classic of project (non-)governance…
There is another reason to resist this temptation. A poorly prepared “mobilisation” can produce unwanted effects: without a clear and shared objective, the energies that have been mobilised may organise themselves around a completely different goal. Whether because a third party takes control, or simply through the ever-surprising effects of emergence (even if many prefer the hypothesis of “manipulation” or even a “conspiracy”, which is easier to imagine than accepting the uncertainty of the “fog of interactions”).
But this risk is no reason to prefer passivity…
It is therefore important to define the objective precisely. This always requires some individual or collective work, and sharing it explicitly.
A qualitative objective may be enough, but it can also translate into concrete outcomes: an agreement in principle, and/or identifiable actions, for example. Both are possible, more or less easy… It all depends on the context, the stakeholders, the urgency of the situation. So one should be neither too ambitious nor too timid… There is no recipe, only know-how.
Provide a framework for the dynamic
Mobilising collectively also means entering into a dynamic of interactions, and therefore of cooperation (more or less in-depth, naturally).
Who are the stakeholders? What are the rules, the prerogatives? Are we looking for vertical cooperation (within a structured organisation), or horizontal cooperation (with relationships based on influence rather than hierarchy)? With roles already allocated, or with contributions left to the participants’ initiative?
When this framework is not provided, the dynamic will usually struggle to get going. Because more than opposition, it is inertia that is the greatest obstacle to mobilisation projects and, even more so, to transformation projects. Fear of getting it wrong, deference to a hierarchy one does not know, shyness, habit… So many “reasons” not to get moving in an uncertain context.
Or, here again, there is a risk that the dynamic develops at the initiative of “active minorities”, who will not necessarily be in synergy with your project and will seize the opportunity to pursue their own goals – with rules they will impose, de facto. By default, at least.
This framework, then, is the set of rules for working together and for making decisions. It can also be a distribution of roles, at least for a given time, to make joint thinking easier: the devil’s advocate, the timekeeper, the note-taker… So many roles that make collective work easier – provided everyone is fully aware that it is only a role.
In “revealing” sequences, this is also a particularly effective practice, when it takes place in a safe setting, in full trust: allowing each person to embody a “real” stakeholder in a simulation or improvisation exercise often helps to bring the elephant in the room out into the open…
By setting the framework, we also set constraints while giving a reassuring “permission”. And in doing so, we force creativity to “push back the walls of reality” – which is the beginning of transformation through mobilisation.
Finally, the framework is part of the path to be travelled together. That is why, in difficult negotiations, the aim is always to reach an “agreement on method” before getting into the heart of the matter. This can take time, because the framework often determines part of what follows.
It can be imposed – and that will set the tone of what is expected. It can be negotiated, co-constructed. Here again, this will be the start of a path that is more or less shared, more or less engaging, more or less mobilising.
Breathe energy into the group, and keep it alive
That leaves the most important thing: breathing energy into the group.
A “sociodynamic” approach, by definition, favours setting the social body in motion.
And within this social body, all stakeholders have power – or at least some form of “power”. Through who they are, first of all; and through the role they have been given in the first two stages, with a clear objective and common rules of the game.
Some stakeholders have power “over” others, because of their position in the organisation, their role and their connections, or the time they are given to act. This is the “power” that Max Weber described more than a century ago, and which exists in bureaucratic organisations. A power that sometimes comes up against opposition but far more often, quite simply, against a lack of allies, a lack of mobilisation, inertia. Or against the homeostasis that protects the organisation and its members from upheavals and accidents.
But all of them have – provided it is released, or they take it – the “power to”.
This “power to” is what Jean-Christian Fauvet, the founder of sociodynamics, calls “puissance” – the capacity to act.
If the framework does not give everyone the opportunity to act in the service of the shared objective, the movement will be nothing more than “participative manipulation”: a moment that seems open, but serves as an alibi for a hidden manoeuvre.
Morally, this is more than questionable. And in terms of effectiveness, it is disastrous. By breaking trust (since those who have been “manipulated” always understand, in the end, what happened), the “manipulator” deprives themselves for good of the goodwill that was available – which is even more damaging than creating “adversaries”.
Power is nothing more than the power of organisations unless it is turned into the capacity to act. The nature of every organisation is to grow and to protect itself: it is a “bureaucracy” in Max Weber’s sense. And this becomes an end in itself, regardless of its original purpose, its mission, and the way the world is changing.
To transform themselves and adapt to the changes in their environment, organisations – whether public or private – must therefore go beyond their “power” by enabling their stakeholders to exercise their capacity to act: the capacity to act, together.
And since inertia is the first obstacle, the third key to mobilisation is energy: the energy we give to the group and to individuals, the energy we “allow” people to release, the energy we sustain.
That, too, is a profession. And it is mine.
Leave a Reply