Look at organizational power objectively and be transparent about decision making.
Too often leaders and organizations are reluctant to objectively examine the various kinds of power in their organizations for fear of “upsetting the apple cart”, losing power or simply because they lack the time, an adequate framework or mentorship to do so. But understanding the dynamics of power, objectively evaluating how it operates within your organization and making transparent decisions about who gets to have what power and, by extension, make decisions, creates a more functional organizational culture for accommodating change and running the organization on a day-to-day basis.
Power is held and exercised in different ways, and a variety of models have arisen to describe it. One of the most famous models was developed by social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven in 1959, who described the following forms of power in organizations:
Legitimate – This authority is rooted in a shared belief that a person has the formal right to make demands because power has been conferred to them legitimately – through hiring or election for example.
Expert – This is authority based on a person’s skill or knowledge.
Referent – The basis of this authority is the result of a person’s perceived attractiveness, worthiness and right to others’ respect.
Reward – This type of power is derived from a person’s ability to compensate others for compliance.
Coercive – This authority comes from the belief that a person can punish others for noncompliance.
Informational – This power is the result of a person’s ability to control the information that others need to accomplish something.
Delegation is giving others the opportunity to participate in the story. If you have a good story, people will line up to get involved to play a part.
Harm reduction leaders have a lot in common in terms of how they lead. Those represented here repeatedly cited the following as important skills that harm reduction leaders should aim to develop and/or perfect:
Find ways to help yourself and others in your organizations develop these skills and best practices.
Many harm reduction programs start as essentially one-person operations in which the de-facto leader does everything – from packing hygiene kits to paying the insurance. Thus, even when organizations expand and others are available to help, these leaders are often reluctant to or simply don’t know how to delegate or share tasks.
Some reasons for this include:
The not-so-distant cousins of delegation are cross-training and “proceduralization”.
Cross-training is just what it says – ensuring that a variety of people are trained and can do a variety of tasks necessary for the organization’s work. In harm reduction organizations this frequently means making sure everyone is trained to provide essential services such as syringe provision or naloxone distribution. It can also mean cross training a variety of people to do tasks such as opening sites, submitting necessary forms, doing data entry, creating reports, or doing financial tasks including ordering supplies or submitting reimbursement requests. In fact, cross training should be provided for most day-to-day tasks to best prepare both for major leadership changes and for normal temporary work disruptions such as vacations, illness or childbirth.
“Proceduralization” is a term coined by harm reduction leader Haley Coles to describe the ways that her organization has created checklists and templates for normal program and administrative tasks to make them completely transparent and to allow staff to take the initiative and attend to them.>Although this requires extra work at the “front end” of this process, the result is a blueprint for passive cross training and its resulting benefits.
We desperately need more leaders who are committed to courageous, wholehearted leadership and who are self-aware enough to lead from their hearts, rather than unevolved leaders who lead from hurt and fear.