2022 Kligman

By Linda Kligman
  

Dr. Linda Kligman is intrigued by the study of relational approaches to creating more inclusive and participatory workplaces. Linda earned a Doctor of Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Studies from Union Institute and University with a concentration in Ethical and Creative Leadership and a specialization in Martin Luther King, Jr. Studies. As President of the International Institute for Restorative Practices, she provides leadership for the graduate school, fostering a climate that nurtures respect, innovation, and collaboration.

Changing Agendas: Rethinking Followership to Improve Leadership

I work at the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP), an accredited graduate school dedicated to the study of relationships and community. Our founder described restorative practices as a way to “build social capital and achieve social discipline through participatory learning and decision making” (Wachtel, 2013, p. 1). Restorative practices align with followership tenets and address the inherent power dynamics between people with and without authority. Vaandering (2014) frames the ideal restorative relationship as pairing high expectations with supports so that we can work “with” one another, recognizing our shared humanity. This mirrors the definition of “partner” proposed by Chaleff (2009, p. 40): Those without authority — the followership — require relationships pairing high expectations with supports in order to have the agency to act and the courage to speak truth to power.

The IIRP’s faculty guide learners in developing competencies to facilitate dialogue circles, expanding participation in discourse. Circles can be specifically constructed to support the development of relationships, share information, explore different perspectives, and inform decision making (Mattaini & Holtschneider, 2017). Convening circles invites participants to sit facing one another and often entails passing a talking piece to indicate who has permission to speak without interruption. By design, anyone may facilitate, and the circle will usually ask for someone to volunteer to respond first. That person chooses the direction for the talking piece to travel around the circle, giving each person in turn the opportunity to speak. If a person is not ready to respond, they may pass and have the talking piece returned to them after the initial circuit is completed. Repeating the sequence provides space to reflect and respond to one another’s contributions. Circles reinforce perspective sharing in our curriculum, and we teach circle facilitation to develop competencies in active listening, compassion, interpersonal skills, and problem solving.

From our founding, because we “practice what we teach,” circles have been ubiquitous across classrooms and our offices. Unlike other higher education institutions that have elected faculty senates, the IIRP has a shared governance structure, the Committee of the Whole, where all full-time faculty and administrative leadership sit in a circle monthly to share information, deliberate, and advise the president.

When I joined the IIRP in 2010, the Committee of the Whole had ritualized book-ending these meetings by opening with a facilitated check-in circle — posing a prompt that everyone could answer in a single rotation, e.g., How are you feeling today, and closing with a check-out circle, e.g., What did you learn or realize. As the Vice President for Administration, I would set the agendas; following each meeting, faculty and administrators relayed our discussions to their departments.

When COVID hit, we had to change how we managed our business functions, responded to students’ needs, and dealt with staff absences. The convenience of Zoom provided a tiled version of a circle format. Kellerman (2012) cites technology as one of the reasons followership has flourished and participatory democracy has grown more prevalent in the 21st century. We experienced an unintended benefit of physical distancing to manage COVID: Online meetings allowed us to invite more people than our conference room could have ever held. I recognized a key importance of the leadership-followership paradigm, described by Stech (2008): “Instead of communication down and occasionally up in a hierarchy, messages flow in every direction… Suggestions, proposals, and answers can originate anywhere and must be capable of being put forward toward all the persons involved,” (p.51).

Context is critical. With quick pivots, it was easy to confuse or misconstrue the intent behind leadership’s numerous decisions. Initial modifications proved beneficial. I shared a draft agenda ahead of time to see if there was some emerging issue that I might have missed. I began inviting more staff to the Committee of the Whole to openly discuss the effects of decisions made, such as downsizing and closing offices. For example, it is not just our faculty but our technology and student services staff who talk directly with students, so including them in discussion resulted in better outcomes. This meeting is now open for all full-time and part-time faculty, administration, and staff to attend. All employees may participate and influence discussions concerning planning, programs, assessment, budgets, and even our employment benefits.

Once our meeting attendance tripled, we needed a different structure. I began the meetings with a “Celebration Circle” where we acknowledge professional and personal accomplishments. The check-in prompt had to evolve to support a new purpose: to establish a sense that everyone present belonged in the conversation, regardless of rank or accomplishments. Some of the check-in prompts I started to use included, “Share a recent compliment and how it made you feel,” or, “Think of a building you like; where is it and what stands out about it?”

Next, to ensure new voices were given credence, circles were no longer reserved for the start and end of the meeting; they became the main vehicle for leadership-followership discourse (see Sample Committee of the Whole Agenda below). Rather than faculty simply explaining new programs, circle prompts were added to invite constructive criticism. These prompts acknowledged difficulties or frustrations by asking questions such as, “What clarity do you still need to support the new specializations?” There were still reports and information sharing, but the main purpose of meeting together was to learn from others, increase the number and variety of perspectives, and embrace reciprocity. As Maroosis (2008) describes: “[leadership-followership is] a partnership of reciprocal flowing. It is like a conversation where leader and follower both are learning about the law of the situation. And like any conversation, leadership and followership can move from person to person as the dialogue twists and turns” (p. 23). It proved a better use of time to have fuller participation; ideas were fresh, and there was more acceptance and support of the outcomes. Our check-out circles featured followership sharing their appreciation for having more say in decisions and leadership expressing gratitude for our front-line staff.

I then moved our Biannual Budget, Planning, and Assessment Meeting activities into the Committee of the Whole agenda. Similarly, this forum used to be staffed by full-time faculty and administrative leadership but is now open to anyone who wants to attend. An event evaluation showed 100% of respondents ranked this meeting as being “useful” or “very useful” for reviewing initiatives in our strategic plan. Despite a long meeting and Zoom-fatigue, faculty and staff were energized, writing, “Thank you for facilitating and thinking through what a meaningful experience would be; I felt for our ‘newbies’ being exposed to the depth and range of issues we discussed,” and, “The meetings provide a ton of useful information and provide for real engagement.”
  

Tips on Implementation

Inclusion and engagement are paired leadership-followership skills for connection (Fabiano, 2021). Circles can increase engagement to create a more inclusive workplace, but you should never convene a circle if you are not receptive to learning from others. Such experiences are a poor use of people's time and are inauthentic inclusion. Groups bring cognitive diversity, so it’s best to craft prompts that benefit from followership perspectives.

Be prepared to give up some control and invite criticism. I recall one meeting when a colleague opted not to answer my prompt about balancing the current workload and instead talked about their disappointment regarding not having fully transparent salaries. It felt lousy, but I listened and did not interrupt. Trusting the process of facilitation, we got through that uncomfortable moment, and good things came out of it.

Subsequent participants in the circle continued answering the prompt originally posed. It was the influence of coworkers, not my leadership, that redirected the discourse to the issue we could collectively address. Staff offered direct assistance to colleagues and solutions to refocus on tasks with greater impact. This is just one example of how problem solving naturally emerges in these sorts of circle processes

In terms of relationships, witnessing emotional tension is humanizing. We all empathized with the exhaustion of working hard and wanting to ensure fair pay. But we also sympathize when we see people being called out in front of others. Staff were cognizant of the vulnerability I showed, and, after the meeting, several people mentioned they appreciated my restraint when that person misprized my focus. They recognized no matter what I did, not everyone would be happy, and thanked me for escalating staff’s needs onto the agenda.

Finally, culturally, respect grew among colleagues. People shared they felt more optimistic following that circle for a several reasons. First, when everyone had a turn to speak, it became apparent that speaking with negativity is an organizational outlier, as most people positively offered their time to help units that were short-staffed. Second, we modeled sitting and listening to dissenting opinions. Everyone witnessed that circle as a safe place for expressing a different perspective, specifically for followership to speak their truth to leadership. And lastly, the one person who had the courage to speak critically has since had opportunities to participate in new endeavors; we demonstrated respectful participation and taking risks can be rewarded in our graduate school.

As we move out of pandemic, meetings continue with Zoom links to allow fuller participation. Though I still prefer to be in the room together, the screen with all of its tiled faces has a place in our circles and makes it easier to include traveling faculty or frontline staff who would have to take time away from the people they serve just to commute to our offices. I experienced that when everyone was invited, our new agenda bolstered our collective orientation. Now, serving as president of the IIRP, I come to meetings curious to explore the prompts that contextualize our diverse perspectives. With a more inclusive agenda, one that features dialogue circles, we can tackle problems, create more reciprocal relationships, and model a highly supportive work culture.
 

References

Chaleff, I. (2009). The Courageous Follower: Standing Up to & for Our Leaders (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Fabiano, S. (2021). Lead & Follow: The Dance of Inspired Teamwork. Koehler Books.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The End of Leadership. HarperCollins.

Maroosis, J. (2008). Leadership: A Partnership in Reciprocal Following. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations (pp. 17–24). Jossey-Bass Inc.

Mattaini, M., & Holtschneider, C. (2017). Collective Leadership and Circles: Not Invented Here. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 37(2), 126–141.

Stech, E. L. (2008). A New Leadership-Followership Paradigm. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations (pp. 41–52). Jossey-Bass Inc.

Vaandering, D. (2014). Relational Restorative Justice Pedagogy in Educator Professional Development. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(4), 508–530.

Wachtel, T. (2013). Defining Restorative (p. 12). International Institute for Restorative Practices. https://www.iirp.edu/restorative-practices/defining-restorative/