Power-With Leadership
Judith Glaser’s book, Conversational Intelligence: How Great Leaders Build Trust and Get Extraordinary Results, is incredibly insightful and full of valuable information about how our brains respond to conversations that create trust and ones that create distrust. She describes conversations as “dynamic, interactive, and inclusive. They evolve and impact the way we connect, engage, interact, and influence others, enabling us to shape reality, mind-sets, events, and outcomes in a collaborative way. Conversations have the power to move us from “power over” others to “power with” others, giving us the exquisite ability to get on the same page with our fellow humans and experience the same reality by bridging the reality gaps between “how you see things and how I see things.”[1] This concept of “power with” vs. “power over” has become an important idea when we talk about effective leadership and I was pleased to see it referenced in this book. If leaders take the dictator approach to leadership, people usually respond with some type of fear and see the leader as a threat. A power-with approach provides a platform for joining with those you lead in order to build trust, which is especially important when it comes to men respectfully leading “with” women. It seems that the more successful companies are figuring this concept out, in fact, the author points out that “unhealthy conversations are at the root of distrust, deceit, betrayal, and avoidance—which leads to lower productivity and innovation, and, ultimately, lower success.”[2]
As we have learned through our readings about emotional intelligence (EQ), cultural intelligence (CQ), and gender intelligence (GQ) – thanks to me, conversational intelligence (C-IQ) is a great addition. Since communication is centered around conversations, it becomes an important skill to become proficient in as we pursue leadership excellence. Understanding how our brain chemistry is responding as we have conversations can be a powerful motivator to develop these power-with relationships with those we lead. Glaser points out that “our prefrontal cortex is activated when we feel we can trust others, and is deactivated when we feel high levels of fear and distrust.”[3] Not only that, but according to the research of Angelika Dimoka, PhD, distrust is centered in the amygdala and limbic areas of the brain.[4] In my work as a therapist, I talk extensively about the prefrontal cortex and amygdala parts of our brain and how they are utilized in our everyday lives. For instance, in working with those who struggle with AD/HD we talk a lot about how their neurons struggle to get to their prefrontal cortex, which is why they are often given stimulants in order to help push those neurons to the front part of their brain in order for them to make better decisions and be less impulsive. I also talk to many clients who are struggling to recover from some type of trauma and are trying to get away from functioning out of the amygdala part of their brain, which is where our fight or flight response comes from. Ironically, many of these people have had severely broken trust in their lives, which confirms this claim the author points out about distrust coming from the amygdala. If we are trying to connect with those we are working with or leading we must understand this reality, because “we can’t connect to others if our amygdala is overactive. Fear and distrust close down our brains.”[5]
I love how the author drives her entire book towards the goal of effective partnering and collaboration. Since I am studying how to increase gender-balanced leadership, this can be a tool to help men and women have “power with” conversations and relationships in order to collaborate effectively as partners in leadership together. If men and women can learn to rebuild trust that has been broken by years of gender discrimination and oppression through more intelligent conversations, we might be able to make progress towards closing the gender leadership gap. Glaser affirms this when she states that…“Humans are designed to partner, and we do this on many complex levels. We form partnerships, we form teams, we form companies, and we form societies that depend on one another. To form partnerships as complex as those humans create, we need to have the neural circuitry to build trust. It appears that there is a neural circuit, called the insula (located below the prefrontal cortex), that acts as an information highway between our mirror neurons and the limbic system, thereby giving us the ability to broadcast messages throughout our brainstem. This may explain how we resonate or don’t resonate with others—which is foundational to building trust.”[6] I believe God designed men and women to partner together in leadership, and He affirms this in Genesis when He blesses Adam and Eve and commands them to “be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”[7] God tells them to govern and reign over the earth and everything in it together, as co-leaders. Then sin entered the world and trust was broken, hierarchy was created, and God’s original design became altered and we have been fighting against this ever since. This is why Jesus brought a new covenant to us to correct this, and Paul affirms this when he says, “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[8] Christ wanted to restore the equal leadership structure God set out in Genesis so we could partner together effectively as one.
Not everyone is familiar with the bonding hormone, oxytocin, but it happens to be something I refer to quite a bit when doing marriage counseling. When couples are lacking in their closeness and stop being affectionate with each other, they are often not getting enough oxytocin released in their bodies to help them bond and feel close to one another. It made sense when the author talked about how this hormone gets released when conversations are coming from a safe, trusting place and it was refreshing to have her highlight its importance. “Conversational Intelligence facilitates connectivity with others and enables us to activate our higher executive and human functions. When we use our Conversational Intelligence skills, the hormone oxytocin is released, among other neurotransmitters. Oxytocin is associated with bonding behaviors, and new research in neuroscience suggests that oxytocin may play a dominant role in the brain and the heart as a regulator of our need for social contact. Some scientists call oxytocin the “cuddle hormone,” because it can create feelings of well-being as comforting as a mother’s hug. This hormone’s power may explain why loners die young, and why emotional rejection can be more painful than physical trauma.”[9] This should be reason enough to increase our conversational intelligence, since us humans are hard-wired to bond and partner with other humans in a meaningful way. Maybe we should hug more people as well so we can get more oxytocin flowing!
_________________________________
[1] Judith E. Glaser, Conversational Intelligence: How Great Leaders Build Trust and Get Extraordinary Results, (Taylor and Francis), Kindle Edition, xiii.
[9] Judith E. Glaser, Conversational Intelligence: How Great Leaders Build Trust and Get Extraordinary Results, (Taylor and Francis), Kindle Edition, 37.
About the Author
Jake Dean-Hill
Currently a Marriage & Family Therapist in private practice. Ordained minister with 10 years of prior full-time church ministry experience and currently volunteering with a local church plant. Also working with companies as a Corporate Leadership Coach.9 responses to “Power-With Leadership”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jake,
I’m a hugger, so I appreciate this post. 😉
I find that knowing these things about our brain is very helpful in developing a measure of grace when relating to other people. Those hard-to-love people may be just operating with their amygdala in overdrive. Understanding they are in fight-or-flight mode allows me to be more patient.
Great point Mark, I think many people function out of their amygdala more than we think and more than they even know. Obviously I talk to these people every day but a great reminder to have more grace for people. Also, you can get a hug from me anytime if you need a little oxytocin hit 🙂 See you in HK!
Excellent observation, Jake!
You mention, “This concept of “power with” vs. “power over” has become an important idea when we talk about effective leadership and I was pleased to see it referenced in this book.” Your statement reminded me of the conversion that ensued last week during the chat about team leadership vs. hierarchical leadership.
You reveal that, “In my work as a therapist, I talk extensively about the prefrontal cortex and amygdala parts of our brain and how they are utilized in our everyday lives.” Do you find that certain people experience fight or flight more so than others? Did you find Glasser’s presentation of chemical reaction generalized?
I completely agree with you statement, “If men and women can learn to rebuild trust that has been broken by years of gender discrimination and oppression through more intelligent conversations, we might be able to make progress towards closing the gender leadership gap.” The same is true for racism, classism and generational bias.
Thanks for your comments Colleen! Yes I think the author did a good job of generalizing what most people experience with their brain chemistry, and I think more people are functioning out of their amygdala than they or any of us realize. Mark brought out a good point about having more compassion for difficult people who might be functioning out of a fight or flight mode. Praying for more intelligent conversations to decrease discrimination in every area. See you in HK!
Jake,
“Power with” is good horizontal leadership style that can work most of the time. However, there are still periods, especially in emergency situations when the leader must lead in a more vertical manner as required for the situation and welfare of others. I think building trust during the normal power-with opportunities pays big dividends when the emergency power-over scenarios develop. For example, during a police emergency response, during combat operations, and during an emergency on an aircraft just to name a few.
Thanks for the discussion on the amygdala. I visited a new mother of twins this morning who was sharing her distrust and fear from a previous relationship that she is still trying to recover from. Praise the Lord that her two new twin boys, 1 day old, are a new source of hope and encouragement for her and her husband. We prayed over them, gave each boy an armor of God coin, and accepted their request for me and JoAnne to be their God-parents. “I did tell her I was 60!”
And it was the first time I ever met her, but what a God think and glorious Holy Spirit connection it was to share, witness, and pray with this new young couple.
See you in HK.
Stand firm,
M. Webb
Thanks for your thoughts Mike, and you have a good point about the fact different situations call for different leadership approaches. I just wish more leaders would use the power-with approach when possible. What a neat experience with the mother of twins and you obviously made a huge impression to be asked to be godparents :-). See you in HK!
I’m a big believer in hugs! As a youth pastor I used to always make sure my youth were greeted with appropriate touch right as they walked in.
Love how you highlighted that trust activates the prefrontal cortex. I just recently learned that the majority of power in our brain gets used by the prefrontal cortex. But I guess if we can’t activate it, if we don’t get to a point of trust, we are preventing the largest brain functions from being able to be used.
Jake, since our discussion concerning how we communicate with one another a couple weeks ago, I have found myself really looking at the way I word myself. For that reason, I would like to call something to your attention that may be helpful as we discuss this book, as you work on your particular dissertation topic, and as we all learn to realize how we choose our word usage. I understand and appreciate the passion and purpose by which you are inspired to write on this particular topic; however, please (truly intended with brotherly love), point out something that you said in this post that could immediately interfere with your ability to communicate with the very people you are hoping to communicate with.
You wrote, “If men and women can learn to rebuild trust that has been broken by years of gender discrimination and oppression through more intelligent conversations, we might be able to make progress towards closing the gender leadership gap.” This statement is a one-sided view of the issue you are addressing; and to the people on the other side of the issue, it can be viewed as offensive. I am definitely found on the more conservative side of this argument, but as we discussed in chat a couple weeks ago, I believe that my beliefs are founded upon very scriptural principles. Furthermore, I believe I have always managed to be very respectful and considerate of both men and women as we have studied the topic of roles in bible and in the church. For this reason, when someone accuses me of “discrimination and oppression,” rather than recognizing that this is a highly debated discussion for a reason, then it has the potential to place a roadblock in the discussion immediately. I would offer this suggestion: please, as you work on this paper, realize that if you come out in a manner that demonstrates you are rebuking me of sins that I truly do not believe are sinful, then you may not reach the people you are hoping to reach. This topic should be studied…not preached; it is for that reason, that even when I approach it in my classes, I never preach it from the pulpit; I want people to feel as though they have the avenue to discuss their beliefs as well.
With all that said, I very much look forward to reading your paper when you are finished; I am not opposed to change when I believe Scripture supports it.
Jake the diagram was really helpful for me! Power-with is my aim. I obviously knew about autocratic leadership, which is the violence of “power-over,” but it seems that “power-under” is where much faulty leadership lives in the West today. I’m just thinking about this in terms of examples: while Trump is accused as being an obvious example of “power-over”, maybe Obama (woot) is criticized for “power-under.” At my former church, the congregation was wounded by a pervious Trump-style pastor, which then created a system of manipulative power abuse by elders – lots of “power-under” problems. I always wanted to lead with a “power-with” approach, but upon reflection, I can see how I am tempted toward “power-under” from time to time, which is equally dangerous as “power-over.”