DML’s ‘Manual of We’

Our ‘partner-manual’ to help those working with us to understand better the way we show up.

Why is collaboration so hard?

Addressing our age of interconnected risks — from climate change to massive inequality — is beyond the capacity of individual actors. Meaningful change will require a network and movement of very different interdependent change-agents and organisations working together to manage the complexity of the moment we find ourselves in.

Despite this need, our social and economic systems are designed with a heavy emphasis on separation and self-interest (more on that here); it is not surprising that deep collaboration often feels like wading through mud and all too often goes awry. As laid out brilliantly in his article, Nick Stanhope summarises the way in which “collaboration is really hard and that the conditions for genuine collaboration to thrive rarely exist” — with implicit competition driving damaging misalignment, massive friction leading to inefficiencies and exclusiveness as collaboration represents existing systematic underrepresentation.

During an ongoing collaboration between Lankelly Chase, Demsoc, Black Thrive and York MCN on the topic of ‘Governing for good’ (a project called #Beyond the Rules), we experienced collectively many of these dynamics. Trying to hold a broad intention together among a group of very diverse individuals and organisations has at times been very challenging. In a recent retreat, we left with heavy emotions around this; for some it was discomfort, for others frustration, for some like meat in a sausage machine and for some as if “they had been invited to the party but not asked to dance”.

Dark Matter Labs led the hosting of this retreat, so for us it was a chance to step back and reflect on what we brought to that table and what we could learn from it, as partners, as collaborators, facilitators and co-designers. We recognised that our stepping forward may have felt like control and imposition to some; that implicit competition may have played a role; that different working styles made alignment more challenging; that we each use language in very different ways; that power dynamics already present in entering the room affected those within it. Navigating these dynamics properly needed care and care beyond the time available for it at the time, and thus the short notice/last minute design (albeit driven by circumstance rather than design) was notably inadequate.

We cannot individually recalibrate the deficits left behind by our society’s modes of organising, but within our organisations we can learn and find better ways of doing.

In response to the challenge of collaboration, Nick Stanhope goes on to suggest three forms of shared infrastructure which can help to create the conditions for genuine collaboration — shared views of what is going on; shared data, tech and design infrastructure and, foundationally, shared ways of working together. It is in the spirit of this last category, of forming shared ways of working together, that we wrote this article to our partners, and have adapted it here to share openly. Having a better understanding of how we each show up into the partnership is already making it easier to navigate each other in how we work.

In this we were inspired by the recent movement to write manuals of me, having come across Cassie Robinson’s here (and, incidentally, we are now writing this within our team — thank you to those pioneering this idea). Used by people — especially those joining new remote teams — as a way to introduce themselves to our wider team, we thought a DML ‘manual of we’ would provide our present and future partners with a better understanding of the way we show up — hopefully allowing us to better navigate conflict, and feel comfortable sharing, critiquing, and building upon each other. We have organised it along the following four dimensions:

A few notes:

1. This was written in response to a particular collaboration, and therefore is biased towards the elements that came up.
2. Our hope is to continue this reflective activity, and evolve it as we continue to stumble and learn with various partners.
3. This document has been written by less than 10% of the team, and while published under principles of consent it cannot hope to represent everyone’s diverse views.

Our response — Manual of We

Decision-making

How we make decisions

DML is an organisation that focuses its work on expansive, interconnected, uncertain socio-economic questions, and this requires us to work with an action-orientation. We try to work in a propositional mindset as a default — by this we mean we try not to leave open questions sitting for too long, but to move to a place of exploring and making proposals to answer them. This is almost essential in this type of work where inertia can happen by default.

This culture is also partly down to our self-managed style of organising and decision-making (which are designed intentionally). We operate much of our work in advice and/or consent-based principles, in which anyone can step forward to take on a challenge or task, and must seek advice from the key people affected and involved in doing so; they then propose, check that there are no strong objections, and act, allowing other people to iterate around this action. We often work at high speed, and so this form of decision-making, over something like consensus, is essential in allowing us to iterate rapidly in the day to day.

This involves both freedom and responsibility. You have both the freedom to take decisions when you see fit; equally you have the responsibility to make an informed decision, as well as to step back and help others move forward with their own decisions, without creating a blockage (including accepting if they do not take your advice). Key to this working is a lot of trust, when we know each other well enough to create a culture of constant (and rapid) iteration that everyone is able to author.

This is not to say that this approach is not without its own challenges or that we have mastered it, especially in an organisation with sometimes fluid (and, like any form of human organisation, sometimes dysfunctional) power dynamics. For example natural knowledge asymmetries and external pressures such as partner demands and time-lines mean that work is sometimes re-authored, or deliverables are changed at the last moment leaving some feeling disempowered and undermining shared agency. We also know that having agency intersects with a person’s lived experience as well as their role/ position in the collaboration (even when this is dynamic — see section on organisational structure).

That’s all to say that we’re far from perfecting this way of working, but we are committed to creating a learning organisation where everyone is invited to step forward; these are things we’re actively reflecting on and trying to figure out

Challenges we’ve found in collaborations

We recognise that this consent-based approach to decision-making works when there is informed consent, when those taking part in the decisions and operations have ‘opted-in’ to it (say, by choosing to work at Dark Matter Labs).

We recognise that for partners who may not use these approaches day to day our culture (of rapid decisions) can feel quite different. We also recognise that this can feel like a burden, where partners are being asked to work around or adopt a form of working that feels counter-intuitive or perhaps non-consensual. Even more, for partners who are used to operating in a more process based environment (where decisions are taken against, say, a predetermined set of requirements) or through consensus ensuring that everyone is happy with the approach, our approach could come across as a power play where we are aiming to over-assert our territory. Improving on how tuned in we are to how partners are feeling — for instance by getting better at knowing the balance between stepping forward and waiting/consulting/stepping back — is key for us. Part of this, for us, is about communication (see next section).

We are still at early stages in building the processes and structures to help us all to understand how to assess dynamics and to tap into intuition around how to strike that balance harmoniously.

Language

How we communicate

DML was formed with the ambition to push the edges of our thinking about complex systems, and understanding some of the ‘dark matter’ that shape some of the deep rooted social and economic challenges our generation faces. How things are owned and governed, how they are regulated, how they are financed, and how that affects what is then built.

Part of this work involves painting the picture of how we see the world working differently, and being able to select language that describes this with precision. This means that we may reach for language and terms that are loaded as a way to stretch and build upon ideas and even define new topics where language is far from established. We may feel the need to use niche terms or even invent our own (micro-treaties, smart covenants, willed futures) to try to bring to life what’s in our heads.

Simplification can become challenging in this context when it then takes context or meaning away from the ideas we want to express. At times, over-simplification as a default may actually take colour away from the painting rather than adding to its clarity. Indeed, this simplification of complexity into small bite sized slogans and digestible summaries is at the heart of some of the challenges that we find ourselves when it comes to democracy and the quality of our social discourse. In general we advocate for more styles of communication, more people expressing themselves authentically in the language that paints their pictures, and more conversations held in spaces of care, where ideas can be challenged and explored.

Having said this, we also recognise that this approach brings challenges. Unfamiliar terminology means that there can be a breadth of interpretation. Internally, this can sometimes lead to misalignment and confusion; however, as we operate in high context environments where we can use non-verbal communication as well as constant dialogue and clarifying questions to establish shared understandings, we can use these sort of linguistic iterations to make sense of new ideas and concepts as a group. We use language as a discovery, sense-making tool as well as a tool of persuasion and put in labour and effort to learn from it.

Externally, we recognise that use of language also intersects with ideas of power, identity, culture and more, and that use of unfamiliar terminology can make people feel like they are not invited equally to explore the ideas or have access to them. We know that finding the balance of having multiple ways of using language meaningfully — to convey the different shades of an idea and to convey them effectively to a kaleidoscope of people — will be something we will need to learn.

Challenges we’ve found with showing up like this in collaborations:

Language has a cultural identity and its association to place, geography, race, gender and other dimensions can be a critical factor in the effect it has in communication. We recognise that by creating language that some find inaccessible we can come across as pretentious at best, or disempowering at worst — creating a sense of insiders and outsiders and biasing our dialogue towards one-way presenting over two-way exploring. On top of this, we also recognise that there is a real challenge with language in the innovation and social sector, where there is disagreement about what terms mean and competing language — on top of buzzwords being used as by-words to cover meaningless rhetoric — without much consideration of the connotations (for a brilliant article on the term disruption see here),

When working with partners who have a wider audience as their key audience — we realise these challenges really hit the ground. Language is power, and so by using these complex terms, we recognise partners can understand this as an assertion of our choosing a terms of engagement that fits to grow our power. It could be assumed that we ‘use’ this language to ensure the conversation puts ourselves a foot ahead, where partners are left not fully grasping the concepts and therefore not being able to engage. This is not our intention, but it could rationally be construed to be so.

On top of misalignment within meetings, we recognise for partners whose day to day is about ensuring communication is clear, working with vague/ ill-defined terms (even temporarily) can throw up a lot of warning signs. On top of a feeling of being one step behind, there can be a sense that the collective work is ungrounded, intangible and — importantly — unlikely to have an impact.

As we grow (rather rapidly), we increasingly find ourselves touching upon new people within our work who operate around questions quite different to our day-to-day. This brings new challenges about being able to — organisationally — speak in multiple tongues to convey our messages to people with different proximities to the issues we discuss. Equally, we invite others to create spaces of care with us where we can all use language as our tools and take the time to understand what we try to convey with it.

Planning & uncertainty

How we ‘work’ (with a focus on complex problems)

DML is an organisation that deals with large, complex, expansive questions and holds a great deal of uncertainty in the way we work because of the type of questions at hand. They are not predictable, bounded, linear matters. Rather they are interdependent, unbounded, constantly moving matters. We hold lots of uncertainty in our work and are required to sit in that with a high threshold of comfort.

This requires us to develop methods and ways of working that help us to find ways to draw constantly moving boundaries (and recognise each as imperfect), constantly iterate our plans and expectations, expect things to change and tap into energy and flow. This means — for example — that we might make a project plan but consider it to be only a temporary guide, from which we expect rapid iterations. This also means that we are likely to move deadlines.

We recognise our privilege in having funding arrangements and partnerships which allow for this flexibility — and we understand this is not the case for all.

Challenges we’ve found with showing up like this in collaborations

The way that we work might feel counterintuitive — or dysfunctional — to organisations that work in more tangible contexts, where different methodologies are appropriate. We recognise that for some people/organisations our ability to divert from pre-determined budgets and roadmaps might come into tension with key deadlines or timelines that need meeting. We understand that many organisations do not require this sort of adaptive, highly agile work and therefore aim to find closure and set up scope early on in the project.

We also recognise that, on top of the process challenge above, our approach can lead to some partners feeling disempowered. The breadth of domains we aim to cross, and our focus on cascading problems — where a challenge of mental health quickly can become one of urban planning without a shared language (see the section above) — can create confusion and frustration.

Finding ways of collectively understanding our levels of comfort with complex and uncertain matters and our individual and collective needs to be able to ‘see the trees through the wood’ as partners feels key here. With mutual understanding, we can find ways of working that address individual needs whilst being appropriate to the nature of the challenge at hand.

Organisational structure

How power manifests in our organisation

All of the above are influenced by, and in turn influence, how power manifests in our organisation. While this is a huge topic and one that we couldn’t possibly fully address in this blog, there is a particular link between power and our organisational structure which we believe could help to shine a light on how we show up.

DML is a self-managed organisation which does not have titles or fixed roles (rather, constantly evolving ones) nor salaries attached to these. That doesn’t mean that power does not manifest itself across our organisation; but it manifests itself differently to the norm. It is, in many contexts, fluid and dynamic. In this context, acting with agency or stepping forward and taking control of a situation is rarely seen as an exertion of power over others. It is seen as a contribution to our shared work — a gift to others to take work off their plate and to help drive through our collective aims.

While this ‘maleableness’ does come with its own challenges organisationally, our commitment to our mission and our particular pay structure means that there are mechanisms in place to reduce competition. For example, we are trying to create an equitable form of pay that takes the shape of a ‘minimum basic income’. This uses an understanding of a pay as a necessary element to provide people freedom from financial stress (rather than as a value judgement). This minimum basic income will be complemented with optional support schemes and — it is envisioned — a financial return on ‘investment’ into DML. By base pay not being linked to performance or role, it frees people up to take the lead or the servant role where it is most appropriate to the situation. The assumption behind this is that everyone has amazing gifts to share, and that money and titles create boundaries and value-judgements between people.

Challenges we’ve found with showing up like this in collaborations

We recognise our need to be more intentionally conscious and accommodating of other means of organising and power, as well as the way that the historical and structural systems that each of us sit within also play an important role in informing our understanding of agency. We recognise that when working in collaborations — as a collective of individuals — we have various historical and current intersectional privileges and encumbrances and that this forms part of our power context as a group.

We also recognise that, whereas internally our organisational structure has helped to provide a space of agency, when working with partners (especially those who aren’t resourced equitably), there are less fertile conditions for viewing these moves as a gift rather than an over-assertion of one organisational power.

Finding ways of working that err towards repairing historical injustices, and not reinforcing them, is key for us.

Where next?

If you would like to explore communicating the ‘Manual of We’ of your organisation, here are some prompt questions that may assist.

Decision-Making

1. How are decisions made in your organisation? Think through implicit and explicit agreements behind how you make decisions?
2. How would you describe your culture around decision-making?

As a collaborative, where would we want us to work around consensus and where is it better to have individual autonomy?

Language

1. What is the most important thing in your communication (e.g. clarity, specialisation…)
2. Who do you communicate with and for what purpose (e.g. to raise awareness, to lobby, to…)
3. What is the tone of this communication?(e.g. Concise, formal, open-ended….. )
4. Within your organisation, how would you describe your modes of communicating (e.g. concise vs exploratory, well-defined versus open to ambiguity)?

As a collaborative, how can we create the spaces and ensure all partners are given the tools to engage on their own terms? And how can we ensure that all of us can communicate the same core principles in languages that fit the different needs of our organisations and audiences?

Methodologies

1. Do you have any ways that you structure your work to deal with uncertainty?
2. How does strategic planning work in your organisation? (on projects / on the organisation)
3. How often do the challenges you encounter require adaptive and iterative solutions? When they do arise, how do you manage that when in conflict with the plan?
4. Are there any methodologies that you use?

As a collaborative, How can we grow our collective ability to use different methodologies that suit us at different stages and work areas during this partnership?

Power, resources and Organisational Structure

1. What practices are there around titles and job descriptions? What are the compensation practices in your organisation? Who decides on these?
2. How fluid are these? E.g. How often do people do tasks that aren’t part of their job descriptions / roles? In these instances how does it happen?
3. Is there anything else about the way ‘power’ presents itself both within you, and within your organisation, that you think it would be helpful for us to know?

As a collaboration, how can we establish just resource practices in our partnership? How can we create alignment around us, including reducing implicit competition and bias?