Last weekend, I went on a four day, fifty mile walk along the Cotswold Way. My friend Olivia Sprinkel and I use these walks for exercise, connection with nature and connection with our selves through focused dialogue, awareness, and meditation. We also, social types that we are, tend to end up connecting with other people - people we meet randomly along the way. This trip seemed more social than other ones - we had quite a few lengthy conversations. We talked with farmers, a publican, B&B owners and the owner of a Cheltenham tea shop (the oldest one in town, I believe). The learning that stands out the most to me is not to assume and to be open - people are full of surprises and different perspectives . And so here I am, eager to report on a dinner conversation along the Cotswold Way.

Our first night we stayed in North Farmcote at a B&B run by David (we highly recommend it!). To our surprise, when he gave us a lift to a nearby pub for dinner, he intended for it to be a group event. So it is, that Olivia and I had dinner with David, Rowan and Michael, and Annie. David runs his B&B while also being a farmer - sheep, I believe (somehow, we didn't find out, only know that in the afternoon he has been baling - though what I'm not sure - could be hay, straw, silage....). Rowan and Michael are a retired farming couple from South Devon. Their farm was dairy. Rowan also runs a B&B (yes a shameless plug, though we have not stayed there!) on their property. Annie, well, Annie is a former professional singer-turned-voice coach. She grew up in the area and is a friend of David. 

That evening we were told that smallhold dairy farming - at least in Devon - is in a state of demise. Where Rowan and Michael come from, the number of smallhold (I think, but am not sure, this is the correct term to use) dairy farms have gone from 23 to 1. I've heard it said that dairy farming is bad for the environment - an argument usually made by vegetarians and vegans. If we use this as our springboard, we might think it a good thing - this demise of the dairy farmer in south England. However, the reality is that this is a country full of meat and dairy consumers. As independent dairy farms disappear, they are being replaced by factory/insdustrial farms: mass production for mass consumption. And as I understand it, factory farming is not good for the consumer, the animal or the environment. Where domestic factory farming is inadequate either David or Michael explained - and this was very much news to me - England imports its milk from Poland. Now, I'm neither expert environmentalist nor economist, but that just seems daft on both fronts. In fact, Olivia revealed that possibly my favourite yogurt producer - Yeo Valley, which I always assumed was end-to-end a domestic product (because of the claims it makes) - actually uses milk from Poland! Pah! Rather deceptive advertising if it is true...

We heard about how farming is hard work. A lot of farms disappear because the children of farmers grow up and think 'I'm not going to do this - slog it out day after day only to be in a precarious financial situation." A smallhold farm requires labour, but sometimes it is too small to be able to employ labour - so without family commitment, a farm goes down.Some people might argue this is 'progress' - industrialisation and no need for such hard, menial labour - it frees people up to pursue other, more enriching activities.  That's the subject of another conversation/post. What struck me most about our dinner chat was that these folks were very cross with Government.  

Our dinner companions shared the view that Government is ignoring the interests of small farmers. Government isn't actively doing anything to harm them, but also isn't doing anything to help them. Everyone around the table agreed that when it comes to food production in England, the large supermarkets are in control - not Government. Olivia and I  were surprised - and later discussed this- because we figured the Coalition is the type of government that would be out there supporting small farmholds and we assumed that the Cotswolds was diehard Tory territory. On the latter point, I'm still sure it is, but I am now curious to know how many of the folks out in the countryside are disenchanted with the Coaltion - and not just because of any Lib-Dem influence upon it...  And, of course, I enjoyed the idea that we lefty urbanites who are frustrated by chain supermarket domination of the high streets have common ground with large sections of rural folk who otherwise are likely to be Tory supporters.

There was one mention of governmental engagement with smallhold farmers: regulations requiring that farmers don't mess too much with surrounding environment. I think we're talking here about government wanting to ensure farmers are encouraging bio-diversity on their smallholds. Which, of course, a lot of lefties I know would be keen to support. I didn't get a clear sense of how much these regulations do or don't bug farmers... but, of course, it reminded me that there are Tory environmentalists - that perhaps the Green movement readily transcends other forms of political ideology. Again, subject of another post (one that I will never write, because I don't know huge amounts about the Green movement, though the Cotswold conversation has got me thinking more than I ever have about food production...). 

We moved on from the subject of farming to immigration. Yup, that old chestnut. Now, you might think, being the only non-White person at the table and possibly in the pub, I'd stay away from that topic. But for starters, when these folks think of immigration, they firstly think of Polish people. And, truth be told, they think of how wonderful they are. Michael told a story of how he went into a shop to get parts for some mechanical equipment. When he realised the person behind the counter was Polish, he was instinctively annoyed - assumed their English wouldn't be good and he wouldn't get the help he needed. He came in not sure about exactly what part he needed to fix what he wanted to fix. So, he didn't just want to buy a part, he wanted advice. Well, he described to the best of this ability what he thought he needed and what types of parts he might be looking for. After a little while, the woman - yes, I do believe it was a woman - behind the counter did that gesture of 'hang on, I know just the thing', grabbed the ladder, climbed up the shelves to a set of boxes and came down with a part. Lo and behold, when she showed him what she had brought down and why she chose that particular part, he knew he had exactly what he needed. 

Now Michael's conclusion to this story was that if an English person - probably in their late teens, early twenties - had been behind the counter, they would have just said, 'Nope, sorry, we can't help you.' In the run up to this story there had been a lot of head-nodding about the proposition that 'immigrants take the jobs nobody here seems to be willing to do.' And Michael's story seemed to be adding to that assumption: 'And they do a helluvabetter job than our people would.' Now, you are thinking that I'm dissing 'British Youth' and/or that the thing is these Polish people are undercutting wages - they work for less. And when I hear that I'm not going to say who is right or wrong. Rather, I start thinking: 'Yeh, this is a complex picture - which is why it is important to look at it from many different angles and perspectives, to explore deeply the different types of information and insight it gives us.'

We did talk a little bit about immigrants from elsewhere - courtesy of Annie who has been doing a lot of work lately up in Birmingham. Of course, the people we were probably calling immigrants were probably not 'immigrants' at all. Some were no doubt born and raised in this country. This is a bugbear of  mine - when do people stop becoming immigrants here? I mean, there is no such thing as a '2nd-generation immigrant' - you are either an immigrant or you aren't - and I wish we'd toss that phrase and others like it out of existence.  But that is by the by. Annie - like Michael - tended to associate immigrants with people who work hard. 

Now, this is potentially working up what is called a 'positive stereotype' - well, for the immigrants at least. And we have to be careful here - stereotypes (negative and positive) have a tendency to constrain dialogue as we put people in boxes, and take positions based on overly-simplified assumptions.That said, I was pleased to be in rural England, talking with farmers and locals about immigrants and hearing nothing but nice words said. And I told them this - I said, back in London one gets the idea that everyone outside of London is an immigrant-hating fiend, and I was glad we could be having a conversation where that wasn't the case. 

In response,  Michael added the point that immigrants were bringing new ideas to this country, including in farming. He had heard that in farmers in other parts of the country were growing all sorts of new types of vegetables in order to meet different food preferences. Am I now going to assume that the xenophobia we hear about and see signs of is exagerrated?  Well, a little bit. I do wonder sometimes if some politicians and media voices are stoking fires, trying to pit people against one another so they can come out as the heroes who save the day from the undesirable 'invaders.' At the same time, I know racism and prejudice exists in significant enough levels and forms (in and out of rural England) that we can't be complacent about. And I'm clear that one friendly dinner conversation in a rural pub isn't necessarily at all representative of what's out there.

Nevertheless, as a result of this conversation, I think I'm going to soften my armour a bit - soften that guard I put up, as a Brown-skinned person, outside of London or sometimes in London among certains groups of White people....I'll move through the world with greater attention to making no assumptions about people and instead being open when I engage with them. And even when something comes up where I think 'uh-oh, here we go....', I'll do my best to continue open and expansive conversation - because getting aggressive and defensive is unlikely to open up the other person to new perspectives. 

And that's my reporting on Olivia and Veena's dinner in North Farmcote....more reportage from the Cotswold Way coming soon!

I got up this morning and on the news I was hearing that the Lib Dems want to diversify, meaning they don’t want to be – as I call it – so Vanilla or as the radio commentator was saying, ‘White, male and pale.” It seems that they are taking action by setting up an ethnic minority leaders programme. I share the cynicism people have about the idea that any political party should seek to get more ethnic minority voters by getting more ethnic minority candidates; at the same time, I can see the logic there – not that ethnic minority individuals better represent ethnic minority individuals, but that the absence of them/us in any Party suggests some sort of lacking when it comes to equality.  And as one interviewee rightly summarized, some ethnic minority individuals will welcome proposals for an ethnic minority leaders programme and some will be totally – and understandably - be put off by it. 

I laughed when I was listening to all this because I was thinking of my fleeting encounter with the Lib Dems. At the end of 2009, I decided I would like to work with them. This was after attending a Democrats-Abroad UK event where Nick Clegg spoke  - I liked what he said. I approached him afterwards and was quickly pointed to one of his special advisors – who, I’m guessing was about 26, blond, definitely middle class (if not higher). A young, bright thing – as the label goes, though I discourage anyone from calling anyone else ‘thing.’ He gave me his card and said to send in my CV with a few sentences about my interests.

I did just that and I mentioned two interests (1) localism and asset-based community development and (2) diversity in relation to public procurement and commissioning. I emphasised that my interests are in policy development. Eventually I got a meeting with someone whom I was led to believe worked in policy. I turned up at Lib Dem HQ in Westminster. We went somewhere else to have a coffee.

And then it became quickly apparent to me – they had me meeting a British Asian person (I’m of Indian descent) who was part of their ethnic minority outreach team – with a remit of trying to attract ethnic minorities to support the Lib Dems. He (I’m not worried about keeping this person anonymous, because he wanted me to tell this story back then - so if you work with the Lib Dems and his gender and ethnicity give him away, well....so be it, as long as this is not held against him in any way!) immediately realised what was going on, after hearing my introductory spiel. Maybe I was being sensitive, but here’s how it read to me: young, bright, White advisor sees the color of my skin and/or my name and blanks out everything I say/write. He never heard/understood that I was interested in policy – let alone my specific areas of interest.

This in mind, I felt very irritated with the Lib Dems and in that meeting.  The person I met with said this was pretty standard Lib Dem practice and asked me to write in a complaint to raise the issue more widely. At the time, I didn’t have the energy/inclination for doing that.  I regret this omission. Change happens through awareness-raising, which requires people speaking up.

My advice to the LibDems (and any Party) – if you want to outreach to ethnic minority individuals in different ways, e.g. as voters, as potential candidates, and potential staffers/advisors:

1. See us as individuals who, like everyone, have diverse interests and backgrounds, which means…
2. Make no assumptions about us based on color, name, religion, ethnicity etc.
3. Constantly ensure you are reflective – checking your assumptions and beliefs and how they influence your interactions with people who do not look and/or speak like you or have a non-Anglo name.
4. Recognise and act on the fact that ethnic minority individuals  - like everyone else – want political representatives who share their principles and policy positions, across a range of issues, and not all of us want to spend energy talking about ‘diversity’ (though I happen to be one that does, but only as one of many political and social interests I have)
5. Constantly keep thinking about diversity of experience and perspective generally – I imagine it would be a useful exercise, for example, to reflect on how diverse Lib Dems are as simply as a community of White people.

I’m sure there are more tips I could/should be giving you….but this feels like a good start.

And I’m glad I’m finally telling this story – because at the time of the incident,  I was really quite angry about it – as Party leaders were saying today: the Lib Dems claim to stand for fairness and equality, but their appearance says different. But let’s be clear here – appearance is merely one indicator and also is not the best performance measure.  Ultimately it is behaviors and choices in relation to public policy that tell the story -  not speeches, sound-bites and promises – and it is by their behaviors and choices in public policy that any political party should be measured on its performance in promoting equality.

Here I am in the suburbs of Chicago. Today I was at the local bank with my father. We were talking with someone he knows well there (he's been going to the same bank for over forty years!). His contact is a White man in his early sixties who calls my dad Kris (his name is Krishnamurthy) and the last thing I'm expecting is an interesting political conversation. Much to my surprise, he asked me what I do in London and we got into a lively discussion about British politics and US politics (a lesson for me about stereotyping!). We covered the spectrum of the riots in England, Muslims in England (interestingly, he had it in his mind that all the rioters were Muslim), interest rates, unemployment, apathetic citizens, taxing the rich, and inequity. We concluded by talking about empathy, one of my favourite subjects. And this suburban banker gave me a copy of an article he had just printed out, 'The rich are really different - and not in a good way, studies suggest." He was wholeheartedly agreeing with the conclusions of the article, namely that wealthy people are disconnected from the rest of us - less empathic, more selfish. This all has got me thinking about a few different questions, including: How do we talk about difference without resorting to 'us' and 'them' mentalities? When are labels useful and when are they a hindrance? What types of actions support people to become more self-aware?

In the UK, we've started using the word 'feral' in social policy discussion. Feral means wild or untamed, and usually is used for animals. British Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke suggested the August riots were caused by a 'feral underclass.'  Recent data shows that seventy-five per cent of the accused rioters have prior criminal records and London Mayor Boris Johnson is talking about the 'feral criminal underclass.'   At the same time (including before the riots), self-proclaimed progressive lefties were using the term 'feral elite' to describe a certain type of banker, politician, and media moghul. When I first heard this, I laughed and I thought 'heh, clever.' But now I'm not sure. 

I support the point - the idea that all the condemnations of 'underclass' people made by privileged people can be turned on their head - both a looter and a white collar profiteer share some characteristics: they seem, for example, to have a total disregard for the consequences of their actions on the well being of others. They seem - as the word 'feral' indicates- to have gone wild. A point being made is that people of privilege cannot continue to call others ‘feral' without looking in the mirror.  

As clever as it might have seemed to me initially, I'm now concerned that in using the term 'feral elite', progressive lefties are feeding their/our roots with poisoned soil. In an age of sound-bites and short attention spans, we want to use provocative and memorable language. Whether it is being hurled at very-privileged people or under-privileged people, to what extent do labels such as 'feral' open up or close thoughtful discussion? I'm inclined to think they reinforce Bullingdon tactics- for which the Prime Minister was recently criticized.

We all have the possibility to be selfish, greedy, out of control. Sometimes we are consciously so - actively seeking to be destructive and with an intent to harm others. Sometimes we have a desire to be destructive generally - usually an expression of anger, fear, or frustration - but not necessarily wanting to harm others. Sometimes, we have neither the desire to destroy nor the desire to harm - yet, trapped in mental anguish and disconnect from our inner compassion, we make choices that do both. Sometimes, we think we are doing good, when actually we are causing harm.

Back to my question "How do we talk about difference without resorting to 'us' and 'them' mentalities?" My answer: we talk about difference whilst remembering our potential to be that 'other' about whom we are talking. That profiteer could be me. That looter could be me. They - these people I do not know, have not met - are human beings who have made destructive, unethical choices. I, too, in my time have made destructive and/or unethical choices - in all three of categories set out above: knowingly and with the intent to harm, seeking to destroy something but not harm anyone, totally unconsious of the harm I was causing. Rich people have more money than I do and therefore have a different life experience from mine. What we share is the possibility to choose consciously to make an active commitment to ethical living. Or not. 

If we want more people to manifest this possibility - the possibility of ethical commitment - in the future, then name-calling surely is not going to help, is it? Well, it might, if it acts as a wake up call - if someone thinks 'Whoaa, is that me, behaving like an animal? I don't want to be like that!" But it might also be a hindrance. It might instead feed a negative self-image or it might fuel ego, arrogance and aggression.

This brings me to my final question, posed at the start of this post: "What types of actions support people to become more self-aware?"  In particular, we need people in power to become aware. Because another crucial difference between rich people and everyone else, is that the rich people have much more power - we only need to look at the levels of wealth represented in the British Cabinet to illustrate this. What seems interesting to me about the studies mentioned at the beginning of this post, is that usually it is people from the 'underclasses' who are researched, researched, and then researched some more. People in privileged classes, as far as I can tell, are much less researched.

In the studies where rich people have been researched, we’re learning of a lack of empathy and a disconnect from others. I'm not necessarily advocating more research - I tend to think we need less research and more communication. But I am thinking that in bandying about terms like 'feral elite' we are closing down opportunities to connect. What if, instead, we talked with people of the privileged classes and the economic elite and we set about to find out what makes these people tick, to understand (which isn't the same as agreeing with) their values, beliefs, assumptions, and choices? I imagine that if we segmented our elite, we'd find that  - as it is with all of us - a proportion are sleep-walking - unaware of their destructive behaviours; a proportion are afraid of losing power and privilege and consciously take steps to protect and grow their own opportunities while limiting those of others; a portion fall somewhere in between, perhaps having good intentions to be ethical, but making choices that undermine these intentions - sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously.  If this is the case, we need different tactics for engaging with these distinct types of individual, don't we?  And we also need to remember that these different ways of moving through the world are not unique to any one type of group or people.

I'm wondering what culture is shouting out 'feral elite' creating?  Yes, the label might stir up emotions in some 'non-elite' and motivate people to become more politically active. But in the long run, can we get where we want to go - a more equitable world - using such labels? I'm not sure we can. 

 "...how to engage and connect...recognising our shared values was crucial.  These laid important foundations for our dialogue. In an organisation that emphasises rules and targets, compassion and empathy for others has been lost. Restoring this to our workplace conversation has been empowering, and opened up the possibilities of change." Jane Lanley - a changemaker in pursuit of greater equality in her workplace

In my last post, I posed the question: “What gifts can compassion bring to us when we are engaging with social challenge, change and collaboration?”  Well, this past week I got an inspiring answer to that question, courtesy of one of my clients - Jane Lanley (not her real name). 

I wrote about this woman in Engagement - What's is it? She has bravely raised the issue of gender discrimination/inequality in her workplace. Here is our story. We were at a meeting together where one of the speakers talked about the importance of promoting gender equality. I commented that in doing so we often focus on numbers, i.e., how many women in senior roles in a workplace, and engage very little with the crux of the matter: values, beliefs, behaviours and culture change. Jane came up to me afterwards and said she wanted to know more. I sent her the Runnymede Trust report, Snowy Peaks. She read it and told me that she valued how it affirmed her perceptions of what was going on in her workplace. I sensed that the story in the report helped her to feel less isolated and more confident in her conclusions. This is important because, when she raised the issue with colleagues, some were more than ready to respond with:  'Oh, you women are being too sensitive.'   

After a meeting where the Chief Executive in her organisation announced a new member to Executive Board, she spoke out about the need for change – asking if the new Board member was ‘another White male.’ She subsequently drew upon the findings of recent research from the organisation's equality team and wrote a letter setting out her concerns about gender equality.  They weren't her concerns alone. Amidst bullying and sniggers, she got over a hundred signatures from other staff members before sending a letter to the Chief Executive. 

I saw Jane two weeks ago. She mentioned that she was scheduled to have a meeting this week with the Chief Executive to discuss her letter. She was clearly nervous about it and I offered to help her prepare. On Tuesday last week, we had an hour-long coaching session. Jane started out the conversation in what I would call typical activist positioning. She was focused on the power and status gap between her and the Executive, on his lack of 'enlightened' understanding of the situation, and on the likelihood that the meeting would start off with him reeling off a list of all that he has tried to do for gender equality to date. She also kept reminding herself of how invisible she would be to the Chief Executive - to the Oxbridge man in a suit.

 "I felt invisible, and [I came] to realize how I could be visible without being aggressive." 

By the end of the conversation, Jane was in a different position. Firstly, she came to recognise that she can control her visibility in the meeting - and this need not require her to be aggressive, loud or adversarial. Secondly, she saw the Chief Executive in a different light. For example, she supposed he could be equally as frustrated as her by the situation. After all, he seemed to genuinely feel he had taken a lot of positive steps to address the issue. Yet, he had been publicly exposed as having made little progress on the matter. She speculated that he might be struggling with the organisational culture himself – like her he is likely to be surrounded by supporters and aggressors alike. She considered that he didn’t lack a serious interest in the issue, but lacked a full understanding of it. 

She also, by the end of the session, had thoughts about what they might have in common, e.g. a desire to uphold the values of their organisation and a passion for social justice (she learned he was once an energetic political activist). She became determined to go into the meeting in the spirit of pursuing common interests and collaboration. And she realised that the very skills which made her good at her job could also be useful in managing the meeting effectively: the ability to be a an active listener and to engage people with the tasks they tend to resist the most.

Jane went into the meeting nervous, but confident and looking forward to making a connection with the Chief Executive based on shared values. We haven’t done the full debrief on the meeting, but she has reported via email that it went exceptionally well. He made good eye contact, asked questions, listened to her observations and acknowledged he needed help finding the answers. They not only found common ground but he committed to taking personal responsibility for delivering an improvement in the situation.

What does this have to do with compassion? Compassion is about understanding, non-judgment and forgiveness. Expressing compassion can mean putting away the labels, asking the ‘why’ when it comes to someone’s behavior and remembering our common vulnerabilities. It seems to me that this is what Jane did. As a result she connected with her Chief Executive in a way that laid a foundation for frank discussion and a commitment to collaboration.   As a result, she took a significant step in her journey to create change - and brought the Chief Executive with her.

Engagement is one of those words that can potentially be off-putting because it is used so often, yet with so little clarity on what it means. When I use the word 'engagement' - in the context of See & Connect - I am referring to involvement and commitment. Thus, stronger 'engagement' means involvement and commitment with deeper roots and greater effectiveness in delivering desired outcomes. Take culture change. Engagement is an essential part of driving culture change. Culture change without engagement tends to be a process of compliance rather than commitment.  

I could write a lot on this, but for the purposes of this post, I'll focus on one point: developing strong and effective engagement is a journey. Engagement begins with assessing where people are with the issue/matter at hand.  What's currently alive for them? What ethical values, social values, beliefs and roles are guiding their responses and behaviors to the issue/matter?  My ideal starting point in an engagement process is to get to know people and what's important to them. Where we go from there will unfold depending on what's alive in people and how they need to travel to get to a point where it feels right for them and/or they are inspired to become actively and positively engaged with the issue/matter at hand.  

Yet, when driving culture change, changemakers often try to engage people by telling them the following:

•   We have a problem.

•   We need to do something about this problem because...

•   This means you have to start doing X, Y, Z.

How does this feel to you? To me, it feels like I'm telling someone something and assuming the 'facts' alone will result in them doing what they are told to do - I'm instructing someone rather than asking them to join me in working through what's going on and how we can together create change. I'm also ignoring their experiences and perspectives, including their fears and concerns. Here are some reasons why the above method seldom delivers transformative change:

•   People do not accept there is a problem.

•   People accept there is a problem, but do not think they have a role in creating/perpetuating it nor in addressing it.

•   People are not persuaded that anything can be done about the problem - 'it's the way things are...'

•   People agree there is a problem, but believe it does not impact on them and see no point in getting involved - they want to know 'What's in it for me?'

•   People feel angry because they have a sense they are being accused and blamed for wrong-doing.

•   People agree there is a problem, but do not the like the solutions being given to them.

This is not to say that setting out the problem, its significance and possible solutions is a wasted effort - not at all. Only today, someone who read my Runnymede Trust report Snowy Peaks told me it was a relief to read because it affirmed her experience of her organisation - she feels less alone and more empowered to take action.

What will be important for this woman, and is important in any engagement effort, is to be ready to embark on a journey rather than focus solely on identifying a problem and preparing a list of demands.  In a journey with this woman and her not-very-convinced-there-is-an-issue colleagues, the aim is to generate mutual understanding and find common ground - for the people involved to see and connect with themselves, each other and the issue in new ways. If we want to create more equitable, responsible, nourishing workplaces, schools, public institutions and communities at home and across the world, we need more cultures where people are engaged with a progressive vision - rather than ticking boxes to be compliant with seemingly necessary rules. Compliance cultures usually exist to deliver minimum standards.  Minimum standards will rarely bring about human flourishing. I don’t know about you, but I want to aim for flourishing – not basic survival. And if we are going to aim high, we need more connective forms of engagement.

When I was a senior policy advisor in the British Government, I saw first-hand how poor communication was a key barrier to development and implementation of transformative social policy (as opposed to policies that just kept resulting in the same old outcomes). People would be in meetings with their own agendas - or at least an agenda; a lot of frustration - sometimes to do with the subject at or hand and/or with all the happenings from their office; a defensive posture, and more often than not, a sense of exasperation - 'Why are people always asking me to do things that I can't do and getting mad at me for something that isn't in my control?'  Perhaps, needless to say, meetings with such participants can easily become exercises in futility. This experience played a significant role in my deciding to turn my professional focus on engagement and leadership, asking questions such as 'How can we engage with each other more collaboratively and creatively?' and  'How do leaders nourish more positive connections between people and encourage us all to see situations differently in order to create a different future?'

It would be false to suggest that my time in government began this shift. I started out my career as a projects director in a think tank, then I moved to a national advocacy organization where I set up a Human Rights Programme.  As someone who tended to play the role of 'Bridge', I was struck early on by how entrenched people could be in their positions. And how 'us' and 'them' didn't always mean 'Government' and 'Campaigner.'  Some of my biggest challenges in delivering success were with other social justice activists. Over time, I would see how in all spaces people were adopting roles, postures, and reflexive - rather than reflective - approaches to their work. From early on, I began developing a sense that some critical fundamentals in our working relationships were askew.

A key lesson, which grew and grew for me over the years, is that people have reasons for the roles they play and the stances they adopt. If you want them to alter their role or stance, understand their reasons for it. This being the case, when we are in situations where the task at hand is to work together – amidst differences – to find solutions to social challenges, we will all benefit by pausing, reflecting and taking time to consider the issues at hand from multiple-perspectives. That is to say, it is worth taking the effort to understand the ‘why’ underneath the ‘what’ of people’s roles and postures.

However, asking ‘why’ is not something we are often encouraged to do, or know how to do – particularly in sensitive situations. We are also often discouraged from stepping out of our ‘understood’ roles – we might be told we would be ‘traitors to the cause’ or even just ‘foolish.’  Or we fear a loss of status and credibility. Well, my journey to date has led me to believe firmly that we need to create more spaces for asking ‘why’ – asking that both of ourselves and each other. We need to be prepared to let go of the familiar beliefs and roles holding us back.

The aim is to see and connect with each other and the challenges at hand differently. This is essential if we are to collaborate and create in new ways – leading to substantive and sustainable change.  Albert Einstein once said: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Entrenched beliefs and roles are locking our thinking into narrow parameters. They are often unwittingly generating behaviours which undermine our shared values and our shared potential. If we avoid questioning ourselves and each other, then our thinking and behaviours are unlikely to change and we'll continue to make the same mistakes.