Nationalism tells me my group is unique. Fascism tells me my group is supreme. Yuval Harari
“I am constantly being pressed to take a stand on one issue after another. It is one of the biggest challenges I face on a daily basis,” lamented the president of a private university to a group of seven at a recent CEO retreat I was leading. The other CEOs jumped in, sharing their own experiences with groups who want leadership to “side with them” on contentious issues they consider important, even existential. Of course, standing with stakeholders on one side of issues like gender, fossil fuels, Critical Race Theory, abortion, Covid protocols, immigration, or guns means incurring the wrath of those on the other side. Each group thinks they are right and often consider themselves superior – sometimes supreme – to groups with whom they have differences.
The leader who takes no stand, or tries to reconcile the sides, or takes an outspoken stand often finds there is no safe or constructive place to stand. Yet as these CEOs discussed, their job is to work with disparate stakeholder groups who are often at odds with fellow stakeholders in support of their mission. No surprise, leadership fatigue is real. Around the country we see headlines like this one announcing resignations of 10 district superintendents of schools in North Texas – Dallas, Fort Worth, Plano – in the past four months.
Differences, conflict, warfare. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reminds us of just how consequential are the decisions and actions of stakeholders as they slide from mere differences to outright demonization and attack of fellow stakeholders. We see it everywhere: between spouses in a marriage or among members of a whole family, in our work groups, in a church, a community, within a political party. Like these CEOs, all of us are leaders – formal or informal – and we face choices regarding where we stand on differences and contested issues: How will we treat the opposing side and how will we respond to how they treat us? Will we remain silent, will we attempt to reconcile the sides, get even with them, or attempt to “cancel” them?
Dealing with Differences: Four Levels of Group Functioning
Yesterday I was clever so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself. Rumi
We are all swimming in a sea of differences, division, polarization and demonization (DDPD) that floods our society and is now a tsunami in today’s social-media, instant-communication and drama-filled world. These four descriptors often get used rather casually and somewhat interchangeably.
In reality, based on my 20 years as a CEO, my work with scores of for-profit and non-profit leaders and the extensive reservoir of social science data available, I see these four descriptors pointing to four different levels of group functioning. Each has distinct identifiable behaviors that individuals and groups use to operationalize their differences. They define how we treat each other and the type of relationship we intend, regardless of the content of the specific differences involved. These four levels can serve as a roadmap to examine and redirect the state of a marriage, a church, an advertising campaign, political movements or even to the invasion of Ukraine. They can help us distinguish between two very different questions: Where do I stand on an issue? How will I treat those who see it differently?
Otherwise, we are vulnerable to group dynamics that degenerate into warfare, and undermine the path to a more civil, constructive way of interacting. One caveat: these four levels serve as a mental model to help us diagnose where we are and where we wish to be. The real world is very complicated and dynamic (think how quickly/dramatically the invasion of Ukraine has changed things) and does not always conform to neat categories.
Level 1 Differences, but still whole: In Level 1 individual differences are present and acknowledged, but the group remains whole or one – not splintered. E pluribus unum: Out of many one. Unity of purpose but not uniformity of individuals. “One” does not mean same, but of one purpose. Level 1 benefits from the constructive and innovative value of diverse voices and opinions. It champions “loose ties” – that is, our ability to learn from and collaborate with those with whom we do not have close relationships. While differences exist, borders have not formed and there are no negatives for having relationships with others that have different opinions. In Level 1, relational unity trumps ideological belief, and leaders focus on keeping everyone connected.
It is an environment where seeking the truth, solving problems and focusing on strategy can thrive over power-based winning of arguments, and where differences do not block collaboration and thus innovation. Start-ups and early-stage organizations imbued with strong purpose are more likely to exhibit Level 1 characteristics.
The downside of Level 1 is that all of the differences and the effort to keep everyone reconciled can lead to a fair amount of chaos and a lack of clarity as to core values. What do we really stand for? Organizations with a high sense of purpose have a better shot at pulling it off. If not, it can be just an organization of close friends that produces few outcomes. As organizations age, especially in today’s divisive world, staying whole is harder, but organizations like Southwest Airlines and Rotary Club have reputations for having pulled it off better than most. Many of us can point to marriages or work groups inside larger enterprises that have remained strong and whole in the midst of substantial differences.
Level 2 Division, but still together: In Level 2 sub-groups form, organize and divide into camps that begin to advocate for their cause or issue. Yet, because people still interact back and forth with the group at large and with other camps, there is still information and relationship flow that produces insights and influence between and among camps. Group borders form but they are open. There is relative balance between the priority for maintaining productive relationships with other groups and the whole, and the cause of one’s camp.
In Level 2 there is some lament about the factions, formal or informal, that have formed and questions about how they might be undermining unity of purpose. Yet, the camps are able to mobilize attention and efforts around important causes meriting change – like race, politics, spending – that might otherwise not have gotten traction.
The good news: These issues get raised. The bad news: Not everyone agrees and some feel these camps are getting too much attention while others feel they are not getting enough. Leaders often walk on eggshells to navigate controversial issues while emphasizing higher, unifying purpose and encouraging people and groups to stay connected. Typically in Level 2 there is still sufficient trust (the relational “glue”) to engage in problem-solving and to take action on key strategic issues and threats – but it may take more time and effort to get there. Churches, schools and non-profits working through challenging issues like gender or race – but still hanging mostly together are likely in Level 2. Camp leaders beginning to advocate for leaving the whole – signal movement toward Level 3.
Level 3 Polarization, but not at-war: Level 3 is where irreparable differences result in divided camps devolving into polarized tribes. Level 3 is about separation into a Mason-Dixon line of demarcation – where a border or relational wall is built to stop the flow back and forth. Distrust becomes the defining lens that colors every piece of information and every action. Tribal belief and belonging now trump relationships with the whole. The border closes!
The role of the “tribal leaders” changes in Level 3 as they now move to “purify” the group by embracing more extreme positions and pressing moderates to become “tribal citizens” of these positions or be condemned or even expelled. Uncannily, power accrues to the more outspoken and extreme leaders. The battles that rage inside the tribe can now become as vicious as those with opposing tribes. I described this process of Destructive Escalation in more detail in my 2017 Huffington Post article, “The New Religion: Destructive Escalation.”
The ability of the heritage (whole) organization to solve problems or address strategic issues becomes just about non-existent because the tribes are about getting away from, not working with, opposing stakeholders. Married partners move into separate bedrooms and stop speaking – or move out and file for divorce. Opposing board members splinter the board and stop communicating. Churches split and tribes reform (like ECO an evangelical group that broke-off from Presbyterian Church USA). Collaboration with the opposition is punished.
Yet in certain circumstances – in a hopeless or abusive marriage relationship or irreconcilable differences in a business partnership – going separate ways is the best and healthiest option. Leaders of the whole must then decide how to respond to the fracture: How can the marriage be saved? How to mitigate the destruction and loss? When to let go? AOC and The Squad for Democrats and the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green for Republicans are examples of real challenges for party leaders trying to reconcile differences and salvage stakeholder relationships.
Level 4 Demonization, at-war: In Level 4 the focus shifts: separation from the “other” along with tightened solidarity with your tribe and its beliefs moves to blaming, hating and canceling oppositional tribes that now become “the demonized enemy.” This is armies at-war energized by efforts to defeat the other side. A closed border becomes a border war. Divorcing spouses fight over property or custody of kids. Hatred distorts and overrides belief, and anything that hurts the enemy can become a convenient truth and defining belief. Previously held beliefs now can be opportunistically shifted or outright reversed, no matter how hypocritical or twisted, so long as it helps vilify and destroy the other side. Examples: evangelicals condemning President Clinton on moral grounds and then supporting President Trump; Democrats reversing their opposition to the repeal of the filibuster.
Whatever is bad, wrong, or painful is blamed on the other side, and often characterized as an existential threat – even the language becomes weaponized. As philosopher Eric Hoffer has said, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Hatred can become a disturbing and powerful racket with huge short-term emotional and economic payoffs.
Level 4 is a state of war run by militaristic generals. But this Level 4 can be very valuable and powerful. Think of leaders who helped defeat Hitler and end World War II. Unfortunately, there are times where warfare and defending against violent, destructive enemies appear to be the only path to peace. Think Ukraine and the reality it faces – differences solved by power produces losses and wounds that can take generations to heal.
This chart summarizes these 4 Relational Levels of Group Functioning.
Cycling downward through these four relational levels feels more like devolution than evolution, even though each level has its purpose: Causes often require camps, separation/divorce can ward off violence, warfare can defeat barbaric tyrants. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, General Eisenhower – each contributed to a better world by addressing differences and violence in very divergent ways: from peacemaker to warrior-for-peace.
With these four levels in mind, here is the relationship challenge to hit head-on: Where – in your marriage, key causes you champion, in a friend relationship or work group, your church – are you making (consciously or not) choices that move you and others to greater separation or even warfare? Is that your intention? Is it inevitable? In some cases, it might be. What reaction will it engender from those on the other side? How, in the emotion and momentum of the moment, have you allowed differences to spiral you and yours downward to warfare and away from constructive relationships?
A key question: If our current trajectory moves us to more costly and destructive outcomes, what do we do to reverse the trend? Addressing that question is beyond the space limitations here but a place to start: Assess where you and yours are. Target where you want to be. Rethink your attitude and your actions.
One final thought. Many noble causes for constructive change – climate, immigration, abortion diversity/equity/inclusion (DEI) – are driven by efforts that further separate and move us downward to a narrower, more polarized war-like state. It is a state where influencing people becomes less likely and force becomes the avenue for change. Yet the big changes required for success will necessitate influencing large swaths of our population with “soft and cultural” influence rather than hard and authoritarian. No matter how right you think you are, how big your Russia-like army and how Putinesque your disregard for human life and freedom, demonizing force will not engender sustainable change. Like in Ukraine, it will harden the target and swell the resistance. In the words of Nelson Mandela: “There is nobody more dangerous than one who has been humiliated.”
The beauty of relationships is that in our interactions back and forth – we “rub off on each other,” to use a Richard Rohr term. As the roadmap of the four levels makes clear, we have a choice: We can rub off on each other in a way that treats differences as a means to build influential relationships or we can use our differences to destroy relationships. Take a stand: Build relationships!