Episode 106: The Power Structure Matrix - How To Deal With Power in the Office

Welcome to another edition of "Around with Randall" your weekly podcast for making your nonprofit more effective for your community. And here is your host, the CEO and founder of Hallett Philanthropy, Randall Hallett.

Thank you again hopefully again for joining me, Randall, here on "Around with Randall." We're going to talk on this podcast episode about the concept of power, and sometimes the way in which it's affecting our lives in the non-profit world. And I'll draw upon three independent, separate situations but ending up in the same conversation about how to better advocate for a particular position or a particular situation, and how to get out of it to benefit everyone. And all three examples are about, at the end of the day who has power to make decisions? How do we influence that? How do we help ourselves better position what we need, what we want, as well as look like a collaborative partner in the process?

So, let me start at the top. There are three situations. Let me give them to you from an anonymized position. The first is have a client who is dealing with losing staff members, and in this process is trying to get more, oh, more options in terms of how to pay her people. And in this case it's challenging because there's some pushback. The second is that based on a long series of issues the client, in this case, the chief development officer, wants to make a change in staffing and because of past histories, nothing doing with the philanthropy area, they are being told they really can't because they're concerned about not being protected enough from an employment situation in case the right things weren't done. And in the past they weren't, which really wasn't this area, this philanthropic office's issue. The third is that the organization needs and wants more philanthropy but they're unwilling to put resources into it and the chief development officer, in this case, is working to try to figure out how do we get to the point where there's an understanding that you just can't leverage more philanthropy without more resources as a part of this process.

In all three examples, all while different in scope actually, are dealing with power. Someone else's ability to mandate and or make decisions that are contrary to what the leader wants to do. So we want to start with kind of the bigger picture of what power is. Then we'll get into kind of some methods really like what Harvard Business School talks about in this regard about understanding it, and then what are the Tactical pieces that you can use to figure out how to move your argument, your situation, your dynamic forward in a positive way.

So there's really three kinds of power. The way I always viewed it, the first is basically personal power and this is all based on skills and traits. Some people are more aggressive, some people are a little bit more hesitant, sometimes those personal traits can inflict a power dynamic. Sometimes it's the quiet, reserved one that has all the power and they don't even know it. But personal attributes can sometimes dictate who has the power. And I think about my nine-year-old son and his comment when they go out to recess, there's one or two kids that always seem to make all the decisions. And I know my son fairly well and the reason why is because he doesn't like to be in conflict and so when someone else says we're going to do X, you know play football versus soccer or I'm the captain or I'm the quarterback there's no pushback. In this case also size has something to do with it. A couple of the bigger kids are making the decisions. Power dynamics.

The second area of power is positional hierarchy, and this is where, to give you a couple of examples, which will seem very natural is that their base is power is based on their title. So the military runs on this. If you are in a nonprofit your CEO has more power than the vice president of philanthropy and so as a result the authority comes from the positioning that's kind of the easy one to understand. And that's positional.

The third is relational, and this is where you actually try to figure out who is most important and it's more complex, easy way to think about it. My spouse is more important than my clients. My children are more important than the neighbors. In an office it may switch around and that's why it makes it complex. In one moment the relational needs of what you're trying to do might dictate you have a stronger influence on one versus the other. Or if you're looking for something maybe you prioritize the relationship of that person over this person because it gets you to your goal of what you need or what you want. Relational power in an office dynamic can change so we're dealing with personal skill set traits. We're dealing with positional hierarchy and we're dealing with relational meaning. Who has, how do I build relationships with people that can help me with what I'm looking to do?

Harvard Business School and the three examples we started with, the idea of what are we going to do about salaries, what are we going to do about a staff member or two that need to go but we can't get rid of them, and number three we need more money but we're not going to give you any more resources all deal, Harvard deals with this kind of in a x, y axis and into four quadrants and I think it's helpful to think about power so you may be in a situation where you're not getting along with your boss, or there's someone else in your office you're not getting along with, or you're a chief development officer or a CEO and you're not getting what you want. Think about that situation in this kind of four quadrants, the idea of attraction, withdrawal, consolidation, and finally expansion.

So let's start with the idea of attraction. This is really asking the question, do you have something that they want? This is about elevating your your power, your case. So let's take the third example... an organization that wants more philanthropy that's not willing to put more resources forward. What they, what they want that you have is your skills to raise more money. And so this is an opportunity, in terms of attraction, they are attracted to what you deliver in some ways. The first situation where you have the individual who's, or the chief development officer and organizations who's losing gift officers, if they want to maintain that revenue we've got to keep our people, and that brings up a whole lot of thoughts about I have what you need. I have what you want. We can work together to get there but there are certain parameters which just are what they are. That's a tough conversation, particularly if someone isn't willing to acquiesce to the fact they really need it. Attraction or elevating your cause or case allows you to set up arguments. And you've got to use facts. You have to use data to help you figure out how to convey your point of view.

So let's take the third example. If you are in a situation where somebody needs more revenue but they're not willing to give you more resources you can either cut back on what you're currently doing to elevate other priorities. So maybe take philanthropy as an example since that's what we do here is remove or eliminate special events. That has consequences, but what that would do is allow us to reassign assets into major gifts. Maybe we take our special events team and get, you know, have to let them go. And we bring in another one or two major gift officers. Those are the kind of questions you would have to ask to figure out how you build more towards attraction.

The second is withdrawal, meaning do they have something that you want, which means you're actually more dependent on them and that becomes really a trying and troubling situation for many people. When you're dependent on someone else and the question then becomes how do you move out of that? How do you think about the situation and say what are my other alternatives? So I'm not so dependent on them that may mean finding, which we'll talk about here in a second, other ways of communicating. We also can talk about the idea of is the situation just non-workable, not attainable dependence is scary because it puts your faith and your output, outlook, production, success in other people's hands. The ultimate idea of dependence to me is very candid is my marriage. I'm dependent on my wife for many things including moral support, including being the person I trust most. That dependence is something that I actually appreciate. That's an extreme. We don't have to marry the people we work with inside your office. Who are you dependent on and how do you reduce that dependence because if you, do that gives you more control. So think about how you lessen that dependence. To answer the question differently, what do you have, what do they have that you need?

The third area is consolidation and this is about acquisition and lessening competition. Really, do they have alternatives is the question. If they have alternatives then what ends up happening is they may choose those alternatives and it almost possibly relates to the idea of dependence in this idea of withdrawal that if if they have other alternatives and can take advantage of them or use them, that means you're less valuable in the business world. This is where, like a Facebook or a Twitter or a huge, let's take the technology companies, just require someone and as a result they eliminate the competition. And we don't have that ability in philanthropy, so to speak, but what you can do in this situation is to be able to figure out what someone else's alternatives are and come up with arguments. Why those aren't good ones.

Let's take our example the idea of a staff and you're looking maybe to have someone move on but maybe HR has told you no. The second scenario we started with what are the alternatives. Well one alternative is they stay. What does that actually mean, because that is an alternative they don't go anywhere? You have to keep them you can't get rid of them what does that do to the office what does that do to production? Very, what else. What does that do to the other employees? What does that do to long-term viability of our success? You begin to play out scenarios and try to elevate your situation and devalue the other alternatives.

The idea of consolidation, the last one, is expansion and this is, do you have alternatives? This is more options. So if we take a look at the second scenario again, staff or CDO, who maybe had a staff member, two that maybe needs to move on but they're not being allowed to do so for various reasons. What are the other options? Sometimes we get so stuck in our ways that we don't consider what else can be done can they be moved to a different area or have different responsibilities inside the job description. Can you pull key if we're talking about a gift officer, key constituents, away so we don't threaten those gift opportunities? Can they be assigned underneath duties as a sign? Other responsibilities of things that need to be done in the office anyway.

What are the options? If we look at the idea of the staffing issue and salaries as the example number one that we started the podcast with, you're not allowed to give them more money. for whatever reasons we've talked about the issues of salaries multiple times on this podcast, including the survey I did last year late last year on what was going to happen, I predicted this exact scenario. We got people who are saying I deserve to be paid more and the nonprofit says no and so they leave, are there other things you can do, other options. Can you have more flexibility on working from home? Can you allow them the opportunity to earn other benefits that are non-monetary? How do you create expanding, create opportunities? So think about it from the context of do you have something they want? Do they have something you want do? You have alternatives. Do they have alternatives? If you begin to cut, put that into context, you begin to see solutions and those solutions then bring me to the five things I would recommend. The tactical.

How do you look at this and change the power dynamic? Number one is, I always preach back to Maslow in the sense of self-actualization, which I talk about a lot is you need to preserve your authenticity. You have to be true to yourself. Not every situation can be perfectly solved. We have to be okay with that and that you may need to take a time out and walk away. I've had a number of conversations with Chief Development Officers over the last six months where they're frustrated, they're angry, and they're mad. I've had the same conversations with gift officers who are like this what they're doing isn't right, and I keep saying go take a time out. That trying to find a solution in the middle of the problem can elevate the angst, the anger, the conversation to levels that get to be detrimental. Sometimes it's best to go take a walk, or to go home for the day, or to go get something to drink. And I'm talking about like one of my favorites, Diet Mountain Dew, not necessarily an alcoholic drink. How do you step back from the precipice, so to speak? You could be the manager, the leader, you could be the person you're trying to navigate through the power structure in that same authenticity. I also advise try to put yourself into the person's shoes to figure out why and where they're coming from. So preserving your authenticity is important.

Number two, try to cultivate a level of empathy for you for your situation that doesn't mean whine and complain. What that means is staying calm, trying to stay non-emotional, trying to be logical if at all possible. The more you look like a whiner the more you look like you're not professional, the less empathy you're going to create for yourself. And quickly creating and cultivating empathy is about professionalism and sticking to the facts if at all possible. Number three is prioritize accountability. What is it that you're willing to do that's going to help the situation? What is it that you want or need from them? How specific can you be? What is the timeline that you need? What are the cause and benefits or inputs and outputs that are reasonable? How do you use data to show this isn't logical?

The third example we started where the the foundation is being asked to raise more money but not giving you more resources, they've had to bring in data to say look here are the, here are the averages. If you do we don't increase our resources, people, or whatever. We just aren't going to raise more money or not a lot of money, the kind of money you're talking about, and using that sense of accountability. Accountability in this piece is outside data. Well we're beginning to have different conversations now, but I would give credit to that Chief development officer is they were able to create empathy and they were able to be authentic to themselves by being calm and just laying out the circumstances. And there were some times where I said you need to take a deep breath it's okay.

Number four is, particularly, as we move into I think particularly in 2023 some possible waves in the economy, difficult economic times. You're gonna have to be more comfortable with conflict. People's answers or possible solutions are going to be diminished because of the resources that they don't have, that they used to, and that's going to become more of a challenge. You're going to become more used to conflict inside an office or inside the organization. You have to find a way to release that frustration and you're going to have to pick your battles. Power or dynamics is sometimes realizing it's okay to give up one today if I can get two tomorrow. That's a matter of understanding the bigger picture in those power dynamics, what is it that you can get tomorrow that you can't get today. What could you give up to get more? So picking those battles is really important.

Number five is creating alliances. Are there other people in similar situations? Can you learn from others? Can you bring others into the conversation that can back your point of view? If we're dealing with HR and with issues of either having someone leave, or salaries and compensate, compensation, are there others going through the same thing that we can say look why don't we listen to what some other people are going through so we can better understand? It's just not us. There are ways in which you can get a collaborative alliance that can be helpful to you.

Lastly, and this isn't number six but at the end of the day if things just don't work it may be time to go look for another option. But I don't use that very often. I think we have a responsibility as leaders to try to work through, not fight through, work through the challenges. So your taxes are preserve your authenticity, be yourself, cultivate that empathy be calm and be logical prioritize that sense of accountability. What am I going to do? What are you going to do? What do we need to do together? Become more comfortable with conflict and understand that it's a natural thing, and we may have to pick our battles. And lastly, bring in others that are going through similar things or that can be supportive of your point of view. That's how you start shifting the power dynamics in different relational, business, professional situations. It's how you can become more effective at what you need to to get the job done.

I want to thank you every single time for listening to this particular podcast today on power. But we do a million of them - one a week - coming out and I would love to hear from you. So email me at podcast if you have a subject you want me to address or if you want to just tell me you don't like something, that's okay as well. I'd love to have your feedback and if you're listening to this on Apple, or Downcast, or Spotify, or iHeartRadio, or even watching it on YouTube, leave a comment, forward it to a friend, make it more valuable because this is the classroom of the 21st century. How do we help each other get better at what we need to to make our world a better place? Lastly don't forget to read the blogs - two a week - 90 second reads at Hallett Philanthropy. There's an RSS feed so you can get it coming right into your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday. Don't forget that you are doing something that's really important. It's a complicated time. It's not easy. There's a lot of moving pieces in our nonprofit world and it's going to get a little more bumpy, but the important thing is, do you realize you're making a contribution? You're important to what's going on and you can be a difference-maker because you have been in the past and you will be in the future. My favorite all-time saying, some people make things happen, some people watch things happen, then there are those who wondered what happened. We are people who make things happen. We partner with people who make things happen. Our donors, community leaders, and others, board members and such to make a difference. Philanthropy, love of mankind to change the world for the people and things that are wondering what happened and I can't think of a more worthy way of spending a life. Appreciate your time. Thanks again and we'll look forward to seeing you again right back here on "Around with Randall." Make it a great day.