This is Andrew Benedict-Nelson, social change strategist and innovation educator. Each week, I share a question that you and your organization can use to find a new perspective on the toughest problems you face. Reply to the e-mail or comment on the site and we can talk about them together!
NOW FOR THIS WEEK’S QUESTION…
Every serious social problem is surrounded by various groups advancing different agendas. Naturally, these groups start to see themselves as part of different “teams" based on mutual interests. But these teams don’t always make sense. How might your problem look different if the various groups around it were organized into different teams? How might this reveal new traits of the various groups you think about every day?
The first question I almost always ask of a new client or student is “Who are the players?” Just making that list often helps people gain some insight into their problem (here’s an example of how to do it). But there’s another step that is just as interesting: asking how all the different actors see each other. A common device that people use to explain this is "teams" or “sides.” Frequently, there is a team that is seen as making the problem better and another that is viewed as making it worse.
But here’s the thing — these alliances rarely exist in such a simple way in real life. There may be groups who claim to oppose the problem but benefit from its existence. There may be organizations that work against “your side” for reasons that have nothing to do with the problem at hand. And many “teams” are simply a result of arbitrary associations or traditions that don't hold up to scrutiny.
In any case, imagining new teams can quickly unlock new ways of looking at the problem. Let's try it.
HOW TO DO IT
List your actors. Take a broad view of your problem and list all of the different groups and organizations who are connected to it. Normally when I do this I ask folks to look for concrete, direct connections to the problem (as opposed to “well these folks may eventually be affected by the problem but don't know it yet.”) But for this exercise, you can really go as broad as you want, since any of these actors could make an interesting addition to the “new teams.” If you need help with this step, click here.
Describe the current teams. In our very polarized world, you’ve probably already got two teams who have staked out opposite positions on your problem. They may even line up with “liberal” and “conservative.” But look for other kinds of teams too. For example, you may have an “old guard" versus newcomers to an issue. There may be various professional or geographic interests within different coalitions. Your list doesn't have to be exhaustive, but try to describe how the current players would make sense of the various “teams.”
Scramble! If you have the time and inclination, I love to make “new teams" that are totally random. You might do this by writing all the actors on index cards and mixing them into two piles. You can also use the “Snowball” method (from middle school mixers) where actors are random paired with each other. If those two actors had to somehow work together, what would they do? The point is to start forcing together groups in ways that make no sense to you now. Even if your answer is “spend all day griping about each other” think about how these groups would spend their time if they were paired up.
Find the team spirit. Now it's time to take the “new teams" a little bit more seriously. What might be the rationale or organizing principle for a team that does not currently exist? Are there financial incentives? Common enemies? Unexpected cultural similarities? What about similar tactics in relation to the problem, even if they are often on opposing sides? Ideally you mix and match enough to get to the point where you say, "You know, I could actually imagine these two groups working together.”
Back to your corners. Now take a look at your list of actors in their original “teams.” What insights did you gain into these actors by putting them together in different groups? Are there any aspects of the current teams that don’t make sense? Remember, the whole point of this exercise is to gain new insight into the problem, not necessarily to build one of the teams you imagined. So for example, you might have realized that other groups have skills you need to tackle the problem more effectively, even if you would never actually work with them.
CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE?
During the Trump administration, I knew a number of folks who were working across party lines on issues like prison reform and the death penalty. They had realized that certain libertarian elements within the conservative movement and even at the White House were open to new ideas in this area in a way they had never been before. That’s because maintaining massive prisons and the infrastructure for capitol punishment is expensive! So many activists at the time were reframing their arguments against these oppressive institutions in terms of saving money.
It was an interesting tactic, and one I think many different progressive causes should be ready to execute when the time is right. After all, one of the most ambitious pieces of health care and climate legislation in our lifetimes could only be passed under the label of the “Inflation Reduction Act.” Even though that kind of rhetoric can make many of us roll our eyes, we are also sincere in our beliefs that policies like clean energy and collective bargaining for prescription drugs are fiscally prudent. Working with folks for whom that is the primary value can unlock new ways of taking on serious problems.
COOL, SO WHAT MAKES THIS WORK?
This question is an example of how to imagine new solutions to your problem using the actors dynamic. It’s one of six innovation dynamics I help people master to improve their critical thinking and build strategies for social change. Reply to this e-mail with your answer to the question and I’ll let you know what I think! Or learn more by visiting http://www.teachingsocialchange.com.
Image: Kids picking hockey teams, 1908. Source.