|
 |
|
|
Selections of Our Writing
Power Equity Group Theory:
a Review for Practitioners
Published in OD Practioner Summer 2008
Rianna Moore & Carol Pierce, 6/26/08
The purpose of this article is to acquaint OD practitioners with Power Equity Group (PEG) Theory, and to provide a context for it as a practical theory of how non-hierarchical or flat-structured groups function. PEG Theory is a theory of flat group or organization structures.
Flat group structures are less familiar to most of us than hierarchy, especially in the context of Western corporate culture. The most common organization structural paradigm typically represents some form of hierarchy, from the complexity of a fully articulated stovepiped-and-matrixed organization to the relative simplicity of a group with a facilitator, or team with a unit leader. However, organization forms that feel new and different have begun to emerge in which hierarchy is either non-existent or co-exists with flatness within the same organization. Self-managed teams and networked organizations are flattish examples of the former, and a flat membership-driven organization with a hierarchical staff function serving the membership is an example of the latter. Often a stovepipe-and-matrix organization will deploy flat-structured teams set apart from the primary structure with the intention of optimizing creativity and achieving certain productivity outcomes.
The concept of self-managed or self-directed teams has become more familiar to OD practitioners over time, since the advent of the quality movement a few decades ago. Both these terms—‘self-directed’ and ‘self-managed’—imply not only the absence of hierarchy but also the presence of flatness. As practitioners working with self-managed teams we apply what we know from working with structures in which hierarchy is present. However, we have never really had a theoretical frame of reference that has explained the nature of and helped us work with the set of group dynamics specific and unique to flat, non-hierarchical structures. PEG Theory offers practitioners and change agents an explanation of the phenomena activated in flat group structures, and pathways for applying this new knowledge in practice, thus expanding intervention repertoires.
If we were to ask ourselves who or what is the ‘self’ in self-managed or self-directed teams, how would we answer? It’s probably not the individual member ‘selves’ so it must be the team—the group—as a whole, right? The group manages or directs itself, we might say. But what does that really mean? If you google ‘self-managed’ and ‘self-directed,’ you get page upon page of references indicating the volumes of research and reflection being done on these topics, so we know they are objects of intense interest and focus.
But the question remains: who or what is the ‘self’ embedded in both those terms? What if we were to reset the definition of ‘the group’ so that it meant not the membership in the collective but denoted instead an energetic entity, separate from the members? A close analog is the notion of a field as a set of invisible forces that influence behavior. That subtle but significant shift in meaning is what we are after here. In the framework of PEG Theory, the term “group-directed” is used to indicate that it is the group itself, as a separate entity, influencing the behavior of individual members and “directing” the action taking place among them. The group in this sense is the ‘self’ in ‘self-directed’ and ‘self-managed.’
This shift in meaning and context gives new insight and perspective to a practitioner called to consult to flat, or flatter, group and organization structures. There is a force or force field set in motion when flatness is present, when a group is loosened from hierarchical control and free to direct or manage itself. Diagnosis and intervention processes are different when the group or system is flat and shaped mostly by the intention, purpose, norms, values, and operating principles set by the membership in collaboration with the group.
We understand that the group-as-energetic-entity with a life, will, and purpose of its own can seem to be a radical notion, having learned from long practice that it is grasped more easily by some people and less so, at first, by others. There are reasons for the differences among the ways in which people grasp the notion, and these are explained elsewhere within the body of PEG Theory. For the time being and for the purposes of the present article, we ask the reader to simply and lightly hold that it might be true, and to hang in for awhile longer while we explore the notion of the group-as-energetic-entity a bit further.
The group has its own purpose for being. Purpose can be thought of in terms of content and/or process tasks. In the case of a self-managed team, its content task is likely to be something around achieving a product, service, or process goal. PEG Theory helps us see that any flat-structured group also has an ever-present process task, as well as its stated content task. We call this process task the PEG Task. This central process task calls members to the work of identifying the diversity present and assessing the effects of the diversity present on members’ access to the group and on the ability of the group to do its work.
Typically, self-managed teams operating without the benefit of a theory that explains the phenomenology of flat structures are challenged and even done in when the phenomena occur, in other words when members begin freely differentiating themselves along a multitude of dimensions. At this point, middle managers may decide to put a nominal leader in charge or call in an OD consultant to assess the situation and figure out how to make the flat structure work. We have found that understanding these phenomena unique to flat-structured groups has helped us become more effective diagnosticians and interveners, enabling flat-structured self-managed teams to persevere through the challenges endemic to their flatness so that visions of optimal creativity and productivity can be actualized.
Why is diversity so germane to the central process task of any flat-structured group, called the PEG Task in the language of PEG Theory? Diversity is central to the PEG Task because of a phenomenon integral to how flat, non-hierarchical groups function. That is, flatness allows any differences among members freedom of expression because there is no formalized role authority present to quash or control them. Members of a flat-structured group have to manage themselves in and through their relationship with the group-as-entity. The experience of membership in a flat-structured group is qualitatively quite different from that of membership in a group that is being facilitated, led, or managed by someone with designated role authority.
If two members find themselves in conflict, for example, there is no one in authority to intervene, even by silent presence. Instead, the sets of norms, values, and operating principles agreed upon by members and one’s ability and willingness to bring behavior into alignment with those sets provide the only container one has for determining membership and comfort. This is the true meaning of “self-management” in a PEG or any flat structure. As members of ongoing Power Equity Groups ourselves, we can say from long years of experience that the individual member has to self-manage in an experience directed by the group. Self-differentiation and expression of diversity occurs organically and emergently and is often messy, sometimes even painful. Flatness, as in flat group or organization structures, maximizes and facilitates diversity while hierarchy controls and contains it. Greater hierarchy calls for more conformity in member behavior. At the same time, given people’s innate desire for individual freedom, access, and justice, members of hierarchical organizations tend to chafe under the restrictions to their movement imposed by the hierarchy.
Usually, when self-managed teams are put in place, the outcome hoped for is increased productivity and efficiency. Management and organization theorists have long understood that when a structure is flattened, creativity and ownership are heightened. However, there can be downsides too. Excitement can turn to fear or anger when the inherently non-linear dynamics of a self-organizing system are not controlled by someone in role authority.
Over the quarter-century of its development, practitioners and change agents learning experientially about power equity have come to conceptualize it in various ways, as if each had hold of a different part of the elephant. As a result, different ways to talk about power equity have emerged. Although on the surface what may seem most obvious are the differences among them, these different ways are all valid, compatible with one another, and congruent with Power Equity Group (PEG) Theory.
Four different ways of talking about power equity as a concept or phenomenon seem to have emerged at this point in the development of PEG Theory and its application in practice. Experienced practitioners will tell you that power equity is….
The discussion above may clarify why PEG Theory and group work are seen by many as advanced diversity work. The more diversity work focused on social group identity and dominance/subordinance dynamics engaged in by participants before coming to their first PEG learning experience, the more they (and other members) benefit from their experience in the PEG. They are able to make more and better contributions to their own and others’ learning if they are already experienced in diversity and inclusion work. In fact, we counsel people to not come to a PEG workshop before they have engaged in other diversity/inclusion work.
Besides the idea of PEG work as advanced diversity work, there are other ways of knowing what power equity is, on both conceptual and experiential dimensions.
Power equity is…the basic human desire for equity in social relations.
Any member of a culturally subordinated group knows what it means to want equitable social relations; in other words to move out of cultural subordination and into equity. There are also some culturally dominant group members who desire equity in their social relations because they understand the limiting, even destructive effects of being dominant on their humanity. Typical equitable social forms include partnership, colleagueship, and friendship. True close friendship, for example, can only thrive when structural equity exists between people, while hierarchy mitigates it (Duck, 1991).
At all levels of society, individuals and groups who are culturally subordinated never give up on fighting for inclusion, access, fairness, and justice. These are the values of power equity, along with diversity. It is as if we know intuitively that our humanity cannot be fully actualized until we have an experience of ourselves in equity with others, neither being subordinated by nor dominating others.
In power equity, the work is first to understand equity versus dominator hierarchy (Eisler, 1987; Wilber, 1996) and then to embark on a heroic journey out of the collusion of dominance-and-subordination and toward a vision of equity. Power equity enables us to re-imagine a world or society wherein structural equity and social justice are the basis for the natural order. For those of us steeped in hierarchy as the norm, moving toward power equity can challenge us at a very deep level.
Hierarchy is not inherently bad. It has its uses and place in organizing various types of human enterprise. It is especially useful and even benevolent when a system of any size is caught up in crisis. Crises send shockwaves throughout a system, so it is a time for leaders and change agents to hold the system more firmly rather than allowing the energy to run too loose. Crises of an infinite variety of form and manner can occur at all levels of system, from the unexpected loss through death of a valued contributor or manager to an extreme large scale event like the organization going into receivership. In times such as these, troubled waters become calmer when a leader steps forward with authority to comfort, decrease ambiguity, and clarify direction.
Hierarchy can become a problem, however, when it concretizes, becomes the end rather than a means, over-determines behavior by overwhelming individual value systems and corporate ethics, or when there is simply a greater degree of it than is really necessary as determined by the task or enterprise. Most of us are so steeped in hierarchy that we find it impossible to consider its effects on relational and group/system energy without intervention. However, as we develop familiarity with power equity through experience with a theory of power equity, we begin to understand equity as the basis for human experience and the life-world. Having experienced power equity in the small group context through learning and applying a theory of power equity, we can see how the values and principles of power equity play out in the larger system context, thereby bringing new understanding to social dynamics within and between cultures and nations.
Fundamental to understanding power equity is recognition of the group as an energetic entity unto itself, separate from the members, with a life and work of its own. This is the basic phenomenon of the Power Equity Group, indeed all flat (non-hierarchal) group structures. The group-as-energetic entity is loosened and activated when hierarchy is not present, for example when a flat self-directed team is formed. Otherwise a leader or facilitator maintains some sort of hold on the group energy, managing and directing its movement and flow to one degree or another. The flatter the structure, the looser and more activated the group-as-energetic entity becomes.
The group and the members are interdependent, and the only way for members to know the group-as-energetic entity is through experiencing and forming a relationship with it; thus power equity work is profoundly experiential. One of the more important tasks for members is to pay attention to how the group is affecting members, as well as how individual members are affecting the group.
Power equity is...a theory of flat-structured (non-hierarchical) groups.
Power Equity Group Theory describes the experience of being a member in increasingly flatter structures as sometimes feeling confused or disorganized, or even chaotic (Pierce, 1984/2008). In fact, flat structures unmediated by the presence of a theoretical construct and a set of principles for operating effectively within a flatter structure usually devolve rather quickly to chaos. A Power Equity Group is a flat-structured group mediated by the presence of a theory of flat structures, including a set of principles for effective operations within a flat (or flatter) group structure. When the theory is applied and the operating principles adhered to by members, more effective functioning is likely because natural order is allowed to emerge from the chaos.
Therefore, a shift in perspective from the individual to the group, including recognition of the separate life and work of the group, is essential to effective functioning in a flat-structured group. Like PEG Theory, Tavistock Theory also speaks to the concept of the group as different from the members:
The shift in perspective from the individual to the group is difficult to make in actual practice although it is often given lip service. It is like a shift to a higher order of magnitude, which is not easy when the lower order is in itself very complex and by no means thoroughly understood. But the shift is necessary in order to grasp [certain] social phenomena (Rioch, 1970, p. 21).
Once this fundamental element of PEG Theory is understood and accepted as a working belief in terms of how energy moves in a flat-structured group, then other elements and principles of power equity can be integrated, such as the following:
There are other elements and principles of PEG Theory, but these few provide a sense of some of the substance of the theory and what an experience of it looks like.
Power equity is a concept basic to organization theory that enables fresh insight to system diagnosis and intervention choice.
In addition to being seen as a theory of flat-structured groups in its own right (as above), Power Equity Group Theory is also useful as a larger frame of reference for OD as a field. If you were to picture a continuum with PEG Theory at one end and dominator hierarchy at the other, you would imagine a framework in which a range of system types might be identified, and interventions appropriate to their needs located. For example, an organization with a command-and-control culture might not want or even be allowed to change its fundamental structure, but it may need to clarify roles and responsibilities or workflow processes. At the other extreme, a flat-structured group of internal change agents or design engineers who want to avoid hierarchy in order to optimize creativity and diversity (one of the effects of a flattened structure) may need to refocus on questions of identity and mission, calling for a very different type of intervention.
Learning and putting PEG Theory into practice allows a flat-structured group to operate close to the exciting edge of chaos, even put a toe into the fast-moving current for a moment now and then without devolving into enough of a chaotic state that individual members become overwhelmed by disorganization, are no longer held by the center, and hierarchal controls are ultimately (re)imposed. The presence of a shared frame of reference among members allows the group to move freely, optimizing creativity, diversity, and productivity, if the members apply what they know and work to align their here-and-now behavior with the principles and values of power equity.
A continuum of OD theory and system interventions that locates a variety of interventions with reference to flat structures and traditional hierarchy enables collaboration among change agents and practitioners as to the question of diagnosis and intervention choice; not so much a competitive zero-sum approach (whose intervention is better?) but more appreciative and practical on behalf of the systems we serve. Such a continuum gives us new ways to understand flat, egalitarian structures and how they work, bringing new insights about the nature and uses of hierarchy. As a theory of flat structures, PEG Theory helps us see hierarchy more clearly and to work with it more astutely because we have come to a greater understanding of the nature of power equity.
Power equity is advanced diversity work.
The work of power equity is to identify the diversity present and to explore how it affects the ability of the members and the group to work experientially, in real time. The group-as-energetic entity requires us to examine, periodically if not continuously, how our own behavior aligns with the values of equity, access, inclusion, justice, and diversity, as embedded in the Inherent form of the group. All diversities are valued as they emerge and are identified by individual members. Previous diversity work helps in the colossal task of undoing various systems of oppression and recasting the society we long for. Remnants of dominance and subordination in our behavior are dealt with as the group enlarges any such characteristics in us so that we are able to see ourselves ever more clearly in real time.
Whether the PEG is used by a group as a general developmental experience or specifically designated as advanced diversity work, the experience of diversity is always front-and-center. Power equity recognizes that the flatter the structure, the more the experience of diversity becomes central to both process and content tasks for its members.
We wish to thank Rick Huntley for helping us to say the needful things, and
Sharon Bueno Washington for her grounded contributions to the emergence of clarity and insight.
References
Duck, S. (1991). The psychology of personal relationships. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Eisler, R. (1987). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. San Francisco: Harper.
Pierce, C. (1984/2008). The Power Equity Group: A guide for understanding equity and acknowledging diversity. Laconia, NH: newdynamics Publications.
Rioch, M. (1970). The Work of Wilfred Bion on Groups. In Coleman, A.D. & Bexton,
W.H. (eds.) (1975). Group Relations Reader 1. Jupiter, FL: AK Rice Institute.
Wilber, K. (1996). A Brief History of Everything. Boston: Shambala.
Return to list of selection of our writings.
 |
newdynamics ©1999-2000 |