See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259189006

The Partnership Organization

Article · January 2001

CITATIONS READS
18 6,066

2 authors:

Alfonso Montuori Riane Eisler

California Institute of Integral Studies Center for Partnership Studies
113 PUBLICATIONS 2,536 CITATIONS 132 PUBLICATIONS 1,842 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alfonso Montuori on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 “Beginning to recognize and acknowledge Partnership in ourselves and in others, and finding creative alter-
natives for Dominator thinking and behaviors is a first step towards building a Partnership organization.”

The Partnership
Organization
A Systems Approach

By Riane Eisler and Alfonso Montuori

generation, there have been with clear effects on the economy and the work-

O
VER JUST ONE
many changes in organizational develop- place, we have to ask ourselves whether we like
ment, management, and consulting. These where it’s going. Is there a vision of what a more
changes have not occurred in a vacuum. Along desirable world might look like? Can we think
with scientific and technological advances, there about this process differently, so that rather than
are major social, economic, and environmental merely “adapt” to what we think is happening in
pressures for change. Different terms have been the world, we can actually co-create it in ways that
used to describe this change: from modernity to reflect our values, hopes, and aspirations?
postmodernity, from the Industrial to the Informa-
tion age, from the Machine to the Systems age. But
there is little question that we are rapidly shifting THE PARTNERSHIP/DOMINATOR TEMPLATE
toward a very different world.
As many business leaders and consultants Systems and complexity theory suggest shift-
point out, in this new world, the old stand-bys of ing our thinking from focusing on isolated objects
order, control, prediction, and clearly defined tasks to their context, from separate parts to relation-
are less reliable. In the old machine model of ships. Then the fundamental questions
industry, beyond simply operating in the assembly become, What is the nature of those relation-
line-like reliable machine-like parts, the only ships? Are they essentially hostile, win-lose, domi-
demand made of workers was obedience. In the nation-submission? Or are they geared towards
new world, we speak of pro-active, “empowered” mutual benefit, co-evolution, and partnership?
workers, “knowledge workers” who add value by Eisler (1987, 1995, 1997, Eisler & Loye 1998)
being change-agents. have addressed these issues by identifying two
But even as the world around us is changing, contrasting models of social systems: the Domina-

VO L . 3 3 | N O . 2 | 2 0 0 1 11
The Partnership Organization: A Systems Approach

tor Model and the Partnership Model. Dominator ways that reduce them to being cogs in a machine.
systems are fear-based, characterized by rigid hier- The shift to partnership systems is essential if
archies of domination (where power is equated we are to bring about the changes in organizations
with giving orders that must be obeyed), an ethos and society at large needed for the 21st century.
of conquest (including the “conquest of nature”), a There will inevitably be changes. But unless we
high degree of institutionalized or built-in violence, address the overarching values and organizational
male domination, and contempt for “soft” or framework, there will be no systemic change in the
stereotypically feminine values. Partnership sys- direction needed. There will continue to be talk
tems are trust-based, and characterized by equali- about a shift from rigid hierarchies to more flexible
tarianism and “flatter” organization, flexible hierar- heterarchies. But even the flattest organization will
chies of actualization (where power is guided by still be racked by dominator power games in
values such as caring and caretaking), by a nature- which individuals vie to “be on top.” Unless a
based spirituality, a low degree of violence built viable alternative to the framework of domination
into the system, and gender equality and equity. can be articulated and applied, there will be no
The old organizational model of the shift towards an alternative mindset and alternative
“well-oiled machine” represented the mechanical, behaviors.
clockwork universe that we associate with the
Industrial Age. But this mechanical universe was
about more than just machines. It was also a uni- TOWARDS PARTNERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS
verse patterned after the dominator model.
It was a universe in which the men at the top Using the conceptual framework of Eisler’s
of the organizational hierarchy dominated those cultural transformation theory (Eisler 1987, 1995,
below them, men dominated women, fear was the 1997, 1998; Eisler & Loye 1998), we can see that
major motivator for workers, and industrial much of what is happening today is the conflict
machines were essentially war between a shift towards partnership systems, coun-
AU T H O R S
machines designed to do “battle” tered by dominator resistance. We can also see
RIANE EISLER is Co-director with the competition. Like the that much that is today being advocated in the
of the Center for Partnership foot soldiers of the pre-industrial organizational development field is a move toward
Studies in Pacific Grove, Cali- age, the majority of workers were an overarching partnership model.
fornia, consultant to businesses expected to use their bodies to
do whatever they were ordered 1) Flatter, less rigid hierarchical
and government agencies,
to do. They were not supposed to organizations.
author of The Chalice & The think, much less change the As the economic and social environment
Blade and Sacred Pleasure, orders they received in any way. becomes ever more complex and rapidly chang-
and co-author of The Partner- And there was no place for ing, the rigid bureaucratic structures of bygone
ship Way and The Partnership stereotypically feminine values days have become maladaptive. Innovation, flexi-
Organization. such as caring and nurturance. bility, and individual initiative were inhibited by
Today, this such structures, which were designed to mass
ALFONSO MONTUORI, Ph.D. “command-and-control” model is manufacture standardized products that were usu-
is Associate Professor at the not only inappropriate; it is ally not subject to plentiful competition and did
California Institute of Integral becoming increasingly dysfunc- not need to reflect the at times fickle tastes of the
tional. Bureaucratic rigidity is public. (In Henry Ford’s famous dictum, “They can
Studies in San Francisco,
deadly for organizations that wish have any color as long as it’s black.”) As many
consultant to businesses and to navigate successfully in a rap- management experts have emphasized, what is
government agencies, author idly changing environment where needed are flatter organizational structure.
of From Power to Partnership, innovation and flexibility are key However,and this is a critical point about the
and co-author of The Partner- factors. Furthermore, today’s citi- partnership model that we have repeatedly
ship Organization. zens of a democratic country can- emphasized in consulting for business and govern-
not (and should not) be treated in ment the change towards flatter organizations

12 O D P R AC T I T I O N E R
should not lead us to believe that hierarchy itself is 3) From Power Over to Power To/With.
outdated or only found in dominator systems, and An important aspect of the partnership model
that we should now completely abolish hierarchies is the reconceptualization of power from Power
of any kind. We have to be careful not to engage Over — the power to control and dominate others
in oppositional thinking, and immediately reject and our environment — to Power With and Power
any concept or practice associated with the domi- To; in other words, the capacity to work to achieve
nator system in favor of its exact opposite. As goals with others, but not at the expense of others.
noted earlier, Eisler specifically differentiates This is a shift from domination to co-creation, or
between hierarchies of domination, which are from coercive power to generative power.
driven by the desire to control and oppress, and Power-over is designed to either work one’s way
hierarchies of actualization, which support a up the hierarchy of domination or to fend off con-
greater unfolding of potential. tenders. It is the single most important contributor
to that vast, unspoken shadow that hangs over all
2) Change in the role of manager, organizations: office politics. In a dominator sys-
from “the cop” to a facilitator, tem, most political relationships are viewed in
supportive role. terms of the acquisition of power-over. (Editors
Whereas in hierarchies of domination the note: this sentence seems a bit overstated) In part-
manager’s role is to control subordinates and hand nership systems, the orientation to “ power to” or
out rewards and punishments on the basis of actualizing power and “power-with” leads to a very
whether workers perform their explicitly assigned different attitude, one that starts off by asking,
tasks, management consultants today suggest that “how can we best work together to solve
the role of the manager be more akin to that of a problems?”
facilitator. The old manager model was clearly
based on a military model of the “leader of men,” 4) Teamwork.
demanding absolute obedience. But today there is The dominator organizational structure en-
talk of transformational and empowering leader- couraged isolation of the individual workers. Today
ship wherein we expect people to be creative and teamwork is encouraged, reflecting a shift from
intelligent, and we treat them as such. isolated workers connected only by an assembly
In the partnership model’s hierarchies of actu- line to interconnected project-teams working on
alization rather than domination, the manager’s specific functions.
role is to bring out the best in everyone, to help But the current emphasis on teamwork can-
workers develop their potentials. This requires a not be reconciled with intra-organizational compe-
willingness to mentor, to be supportive as well as tition between departments, an endemic problem
task-oriented — and to learn as well as teach, cre- in organizations. If efforts at creating successful
ating a mutual learning loop. Instead of micro teams are not accompanied by a shift from a dom-
managing every step of the process, in partnership inator to a partnership way of relating, most efforts
management we can speak of outcome-based will in fact be doomed.
management. A manager can explain what the Working in teams requires great attention to
desired outcome is, and support her or his team in the nature and quality of our relationships as well
achieving that outcome in whatever way works as a focused task-orientation. Our social system
best for them. Teams and individuals can develop has historically educated men to focus on tasks
new and innovative, or simply efficient and con- and socialized women to be much more sensitive
venient, ways of performing their tasks. to issues of relationship, and to value their impor-
This approach to management makes it possi- tance. In a gender-holistic, partnership organiza-
ble to function in our rapidly changing world. Even tion, both women and men learn to do both,
more significantly, it leads to much greater creativ- thereby paying the necessary attention to such
ity. Moreover, it leads to a reconceptualization of “intangible,” “non-quantifiable” concerns as feel-
the nature of power, responsibility, and authority. ings, trust, and other stereotypically “feminine”
concerns (cf.Moss Kanter, 1993; Rosener, 1995).

VO L . 3 3 | N O . 2 | 2 0 0 1 13
The Partnership Organization: A Systems Approach

5) Diversity socially and historically constructed gender differ-

Twenty five years ago, the “manager” and the ences, for example, the strong “macho” man, the
“worker” were generally portrayed as white males. subservient woman, and place male above female.
Today workers and managers are increasingly Women, and the values they represent, are viewed
diverse. Sexual harassment, racism, and discrimina- as inferior to males and the values they represent.
tion of all kinds are still quite prevalent in our Indeed, the dominator system creates “opposi-
organizations, but they are beginning to be tional identities”: men are defined in opposition to
addressed: it is finally OK to speak up about these women, and vice versa.
issues. In short, today’s workplace has seen an This distinction is highly significant for organi-
increased awareness of, and sensitivity to, issues of zational development and management. Research
diversity. shows that individuals who are not trapped in rigid
From a dominator perspective, diversity is a stereotypical gender roles tend to be more flexible
threat to the order. But from a partnership per- and psychologically healthy. They also tend to find
spective, diversity is an opportunity for greater cre- it easier to work with others in teams rather than
ativity, for sharing new perspectives, creating new merely assuming positions in rigid rank orderings,
ideas and relationships, and presents possibilities to play management roles that are inspiring and
for unusual and generative cross-pollinations. At a facilitating rather than intimidating, and to be inno-
more subtle level, the implications of the growing vative and creative.
presence of white women and people of color are
even more profound. It requires a rethinking of 7) Creativity and entrepreneurship
what the real needs, desires, and capacities of In the current business environment it is not
workers are. sufficient to simply adapt: we must innovate and
Nowhere is this more apparent than with the create. Moreover, using a systems/partnership
problems faced by women in the workforce, since approach, we can begin to redesign organizations,
it is clear that organizations were not designed and the role of organizations in society to improve
with them in mind. Flex-work, job-sharing, child- our quality of life.
care, and parental leave are some of the results of In dominator systems, there is an ambiguous
women’s increased entry into the workforce. But relationship with creativity: it is viewed a great gift,
these matters directly impact both men and and at the same time potentially enormously dis-
women. They also directly impact children — and ruptive, a threat to the established order. In part-
our future. They call for the redesign of organiza- nership systems, creativity is both highly valued
tions to meet human needs — which will in turn and rewarded. While partnership creativity does
also meet the need of providing the high quality not exclude dramatic creative changes, it also fos-
capital needed for the postindustrial economy — a ters creative relationships and creative approaches
capital that is largely shaped from both psychology to everyday problems.
and neuroscience, by the quality of care children Partnership creativity includes social, collabo-
receive. rative creativity, not just something reserved for
the occasional lone genius (Montuori &
6) Gender-balance Purser1995, 1999). We can let go of the idea that
In partnership systems, there is a holistic and creativity only occurs in the rarified domains of the
synergistic view of identity. Individuals are not arts and sciences, and apply it where it is perhaps
locked into restrictive, stereotypical gender roles, most needed: towards finding alternatives to dom-
but free to express all their potential. They can ination, and the creation of partnership systems.
experience and express feelings, thoughts and A systemic, partnership approach to creativity
behaviors they deem appropriate, regardless of points us beyond an exclusive focus on the “big
how they are gender-specifically categorized. bang” of product innovation, and towards the
While a fundamental characteristic of partnership ongoing process of “everyday creativity.” This
systems is that they are gender-balanced and holis- means making creative thinking and behavior a
tic, dominator systems polarize and accentuate part of our daily lives, and infusing every aspect of

14 O D P R AC T I T I O N E R
the organization with creativity to foster continuos Along with our own and others’ fundamental
improvement and quality — new managerial prac- assumptions, we also explore the very way we
tices, new rewards, new educational processes, think. We have dound that Dominator thinking is
new organizational charts, and so forth.. It is a cre- polarizing thinking It leads to the kind of thinking
ativity that can also express itself where women that does not allow for possibilities beyond
have traditionally been allowed most room to either/or and all/nothing. Polarizing blocks us from
develop, in the area of relationships. It can be exploring possibilities behond black or white, and
channeled into overcoming “office politics.” And it prevents us from making creative changes.
can be directed to addressing the challenge out-
lined above: the “conversion” from domination to Mental Traps
partnership, creating new and better systems and a In our experience, most people are eager to
better world. embrace the core idea of partnership, and reject
Systems theorists have shown the importance the dominator system. But although they may wel-
of viewing the world in terms of systems within come the Partnership principles, they get stuck on
systems, and therefore the importance of the con- basic misconceptions or “myths” about what Part-
text within which any system operates. In domina- nership really is in practice. For instance, during
tor business organizations, the social and natural group exercises in workshops we have heard peo-
environment have not been considered (Purser, ple say things like, “I could see my group was going
Park, & Montuori 1995). Nature, as well as human around in circles, that we were just spinning our
being were viewed almost exclusively as resources wheels, but I didn’t want to jump in because I did-
to be exploited. This has had negative conse- n’t want to be a dominator.” Or, “our group does-
quences for nature and the vast majority of n’t have any kind of leader or hierarchy. We do
women, men, and children. But in our time, this everything by consensus.” This is polarized think-
dominator way of doing business is not sustain- ing. It is driven by ALL or NONE and
able. Systems thinking — and specifically thinking EITHER/OR: EITHER we have a leader, OR we
in terms of partnership systems — is not only nec- do everything by consensus; ALL hierarchy is bad,
essary for long term business survival, but poten- therefore we must completely eliminate any form
tially for human survival (Eisler 1994,1995, 1998; of hierarchy whatsoever; ALL assertive behavior is
Montuori 1998). Dominator behavior. This kind of thinking does
What if organizations were to be designed not allow the possibility of being assertive without
with systemic, and life-enhancing, partnership prin- being a Dominator, or of establishing a hierarchy
ciples in mind? This would indeed require a fun- based on priorities, or on appropriateness for a
damental shift in the way we think about, and particular task, or on competence. It cuts off
design, organizations. Above all, it would require creativity.
the kind of creativity that is nurtured and sup- We invite participants to challenge their own
ported by the partnership model: the vast and assumptions and explore their thinking not only
largely untapped reservoir of social creativity and about the Dominator system, but also about the
social entrepreneurship. Partnership system, because as we have seen,
sometimes it is hard to see into the real-life impli-
cations of Partnership if we’re stuck in a polarizing
SOME POINTERS TO Dominator logic. Some basic and common mis-
PARTNERSHIP IN PRACTICE conceptions include:

Creating a partnership organization requires a Myth: Its a dog-eat-dog world, and there’ s
deep re-organization of our beliefs about what it nothing we can do about.
means to work together. Challenging assumptions Reality: The world is what we make it, and
is a key ingredient of the creative process, and the human relations are socially constructed. There are
Partnership process is in fact a creative process, a many different ways for humans to interact, which,
creative challenge to draw on all our resources. based on Eisler’ s template, can be summarized as

VO L . 3 3 | N O . 2 | 2 0 0 1 15
The Partnership Organization: A Systems Approach

either dominator or partnership ways. tor system and behavior. This allows people to see
that partnership is something that they have expe-
Myth: There is no hierarchy in the partner- rienced, in some form or other, and makes it more
ship organization. real.
Reality: The partnership organization has Many people assume that creating partnership
hierarchies of actualization-based not on force, but organizations requires huge transformations,
on competence, temporal priority, values, and changes in leadership and massive amounts of
other criteria. “consciousness-raising,” perhaps. This can initially
be quite discouraging. No organization will orient
Myth: Partnership is just working together, it completely to the partnership or dominator model.
means alliances, or collaboration. It is always a matter of degree. Our research shows
Reality: Collaboration occurs in both partner- that although it is important to focus on the
ship and dominator systems, but patterned differ- macro-dimension of organizational change, which
ently in each. Partnership collaboration stresses we address extensively in our forthcoming book,
mutual benefit-and not just to the collaborators, there is also a micro-dimension, and that this
but to those affected by the collaboration (the “everyday” world of interactions is not only a cru-
Nazis collaborated very well, for instance, but not cial place to create partnership, but it is in fact
for the benefit of all). where we live! In other words, the day-to-day
interactions at work are exactly what we need to
Myth: In partnership everything is done by focus on most, because our work life is made up
consensus. of just that-day-to-day interaction with co-workers,
Reality: Doing everything by consensus can subordinates, clients, and so on. Keeping the
lead to more subtle but justa s pervasive forms of macro-picture in mind, including global context,
domination. Partnership requires give and take. and structural and systemic issues, and remaining
Compromise can be creative. aware of the basic difference between the Domi-
nator and Partnership difference while working on
Myth: In partnership there is no conflict, no micro-activities is a form of thinking globally and
differences. acting locally.
Reality: There are always differences and con- In order to show people that partnership can
flicts. But how they are viewed and dealt with are start here and now, we ask people to think about
different in a Dominator or Partnership context. In and make a list of a dozen or so small workplace
the former conflicts are about eliminating one of experiences that are examples of partnership ver-
the two parties. In the latter, conflict is viewed as a sus dominator behaviors. One way to do this is by
potential source for creativity.It is important to having people list “random acts of kindness,” and
point out that there is no specific recipe for Part- “random acts of unkindness.” These are purposely
nership. As we suggest above, there are guiding small and almost insignificant events and behav-
principles, but how Partnership manifests is ulti- iors-ranging from a smile to a kind word to being
mately the result of the individual and collective brushed off or treated with subtle disrespect at a
creativity of the individuals involved. Creating a meeting. They can be behaviors associated with
space for that creativity to manifest-both interper- the example used for Best Workplace Experiences.
sonally and intra-personally, in the way we think What were people doing, specifically? Not doing?
and feel-is the vital step. How were they relating to each other? How did it
make you feel?
Behavioral Patterns We encourage people to think about how
When we ask people to remember their “Best these kinds of “micro-behaviors” make a huge dif-
and Worst Workplace Experiences,” the best usu- ference in our day to day experience. Our point is
ally has all the characteristics of a partnership expe- that these behaviors are not random, in one
rience, and the worst is more often than not an important sense. They either prop up the domina-
experience bearing all the hallmarks of a domina- tor system, or help create partnership. We also

16 O D P R AC T I T I O N E R
encourage people to pay more attention to these —————. “From Domination to Partnership: The
behaviors in themselves and in others-to acknowl- Hidden Subtext for Sustainable Change,” Jour-
edge behavior of others that they find conducive nal of Organizational Change Management. 7, 4,
to partnership—and to engage in more themselves. 1994.
Most people are very surprised to find the —————-. Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics
extent to which small behaviors make a big differ- of the Body. San Francisco: Harper San Fran-
ence. Although the prospect of creating a Partner- cisco, 1995.
ship organization may appear daunting at first, it’s —————-. “Cultural Transformation Theory: A
actually easy to make the first step, and to draw on New Paradigm for History.” In Macrohistory and
our reservoir of positive experiences to spread Macrohistorians. Johan Galtung and Sohail Inay-
more of them around. atullah, editors. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger,
The great psychologist Abraham Maslow 1997.
(1998) used to say that when he would discuss —————-. “Conscious Evolution: Cultural Transfor-
peak experiences with his students, they all spon- mation and Human Agency.” In The Evolution-
taneously started having more, simply because ary Outrider. David Loye, editor. New York:
they focused their attention on them. This is a very Greenwood, 1998.
interesting comment, because it suggests that most Eisler, Riane and David Loye, The Partnership Way:
of the time our minds are simply not open to con- New Tools for Living and Learning. Brandon: Ver-
sidering peak experiences, and our attention is mont: Holistic Education Press, 1998.
focused on that which pulls us away from them. In Montuori, Alfonso. “Complexity, Epistemology,
the same way, through the media focus on vio- and the Challenge of the Future.” Best Papers of
lence and certain forms of gossiping and patterns the Proceedings of the Academy of Management
of attention, we tend to focus more on Domina- Conference, San Diego, CA (CD-ROM). Acad-
tor-like behavior than on recognizing (and recipro- emy of Management Publications, August
cating) Partnership-like behavior. Beginning to rec- 1998.
ognize and acknowledge Partnership in ourselves Montuori, Alfonso and Ronald Purser. “Decon-
and in others, and finding creative alternatives for structing the Lone Genius Myth: Towards a
Dominator thinking and behaviors is a first step Contextual View of Creativity.” Journal of
towards building a Partnership organization. ■ Humanistic Psychology. 35, 3, 1995.
Purser, Ronald and Montuori, Alfonso (Eds.). Social
Creativity, Volume 2. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
REFERENCES Press, 1999.
Purser, Ronald., C. Park, & Alfonso Montuori.
Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and The Blade: Our His- “Limits to Anthropocentrism: Towards an Eco-
tory, Our Future. San Francisco: Harper & Row, centric Organization Paradigm?” Academy of
1987. Management Review. 20, 4, 1995.

VO L . 3 3 | N O . 2 | 2 0 0 1 17

View publication stats