“Bridging is a salve for our fractured world…We can overcome the illusion of separateness by honoring our differences, transcending the notion that difference divides us, and instead co-create a world where everyone belongs.“ john a powell, The Power of Bridging.
I had the opportunity recently to reflect on what it means to be a bridge in times of immense change and disruption with National Training Lab (NTL) colleagues and thought leaders. Bridging is a topic I have been thinking about for some time (See past post: In a World of Extremes: Build a Bridge). The opportunity to reflect on it again underscored that it might be worth sharing what I have learned so far, as I hear colleagues, friends and community members increasing asking: How do I bridge divides with those I disagree with? How can I engage when I believe our differences are irreconcilable at a values level? What do I do when my fundamental disagreements are with family members? What about systems that do not serve me and my loved ones – are they worth bridging?
From my work in Human/Organization Development and Change, I have learnt that there are generally three overarching strategies to consider particularly in the context of social systems change.
- Breaking
- Building
- Bridging
Breaking strategies generally come from the interdisciplinary social sciences and social justice organizing schools of thought that illuminates the power dynamics and disadvantages of social systems that systematically or inadvertently create oppressions. These are often called the critical approach to social sciences and change. Breaking strategies call for the dismantling of those systems and structures that do not serve collective society.
Building approaches focus on amplifying what is already working as the pathway to change and transformation. These approaches are grounded in positive social sciences / positive change approaches (see also positive organization scholarship and appreciative inquiry). The thinking is that if you scale up what is already working, it will attract people to the success and positive outcomes and reduce the resistance and counter power strategies that can come with using breaking approaches to challenge the status quo.
Bridging approaches are oriented to bringing together the opposing forces within social systems to co-create shared futures. It is the approach that acknowledges that shared futures often necessitate living in a pluriverse that focuses less on collective agreement as a condition for social systems and more on acknowledgment of fundamental differences and mutual understanding and honoring of the autonomy and agency of people and groups to eventually choose a third way together. It leverages insights from both breaking and building approaches. Bridging tries to solve for the push and pull of the breaking approach in which all sides keep trying to impose their own worldview, producing counter-pressure by those who will be disadvantaged by changes. It also tries to reduce the tendency to dismiss/ignore the benefits of building strategies by those who prefer the comfort of the world as it is. Building relies on principles of attraction, which makes it possible for people and groups to exists in their own echo chambers and parallel universes instead of a pluriverse. The risk of this of course is the possibility that parallel universes designed on opposing worldviews will inevitably collide.
Which strategy is right? It depends on the context and often, for social change to occur, all three are needed at different points in time. For example, groups may come together to bridge divides and work hard on generating a shared solution. If successful, that agreed solution may mean dismantling parts of the system that are not working for many and building new structures that better address collective needs. Or there may be a need to build new systems because existing ones are broken and doing so often requires bridging a plurality of interests. This of course, is easier said than done, but with the right combination of humanistic, democratic principles and shared commitment can succeed.
At the interpersonal level however, the answer to where you start or which strategy to choose at any time depends on your goals? What is at stake? If it is a relationship you need to preserve, a breaking strategy would mean cutting off the relationship entirely, or at best, asking for boundaries. For example, with a family relationship that you decide may be too close to break off, you might ask that everyone agrees to no discussions about religion or politics at Thanksgiving. A building strategy could mean co-creating rules of engagement in the relationship, testing those agreements and learning through trial and error. A bridging strategy however means figuring out how to engage in a way that leaves opens the possibility for ongoing conversation, and building or rebuilding relationships that are strained by some kind of divide, disagreement or difference that has created the chasm. The bridgebuilder leaves the drawbridge open, making it possible at any time for there to be meaningful contact between the parties. Sometimes, along the way, there may be a need for boundaries, but the bridgebuilder’s hope is always that at some point, enough meaningful contact will manifest into the ability to co-create or build together a world that works for all.
Here are a few things I have learned about what it takes to bridge, at the level of systems, interpersonally and individually.
Bridging Systems
In my work on a Bridge Framework in the context of co-creating equity-centered futures, I call for an understanding that to bridge systems, we, who agree to gather, must acknowledge the need to metaphorically gather at the center of the bridge, where we allow worlds of difference to meet. This requires an understanding that “up until now” (as the late Dr. Edith Seashore would famously say), there is always, in every human system, those that hold power and privilege and those that experience marginality, on any number of dimensions. We also acknowledge that we each embody privilege and marginality, to different degrees, depending on the context, all the time. We understand that we are called and committed to breaking oppressive cycles and co-creating the futures we want because we recognize that humanity needs all of us. We know there has been trauma and operate on the principles that truth, healing and wholeness are part of the journey to systems transformation. We are committed to being positively disruptive and acting courageously on the possibilities that will lead us to that transformation.
In the Bridge Framework, this requires the following:
- A deep understanding of the human concerns of both the marginalized and the privileged
- A commitment to what I call Bridge Work, the work and conditions required to meaningfully connect from a place of mutual understanding and learning instead of judgment and/or a self-righteous stance. This doesn’t mean giving up interests, concerns or needs but rather seeking first to understand and be understood. Bridge Work entails unpacking and then reimagining systems based on an understanding of the varying impacts of its hardware (systems, structures, processes), software (culture, human experiences), trauma implications and ways to create connections that meaningfully explore these variations.
- The personal commitment of the many who become leaders/change agents, by their willingness to be edgewalkers, navigating between the old and the emerging systems to facilitate this bridgework in the grey zone of change.
Bridging Intergroup/Interpersonal Relationships
Since a significant part of Bridge Work is meaningful intergroup and interpersonal contact, another exploration I have embarked on is understanding what it takes to bring groups and people with differing perspectives together for bridge work. A colleague and I built on our work on the Belonging Diamond in educational settings to propose a framework for bridge-building to belonging beyond the classroom.[1] We reviewed literatures from diverse fields spanning, world systems analysis, organization development, contact theory, conflict resolution, asset based community development, peacebuilding, intercultural relations/cultural humility, transformative learning, communications and the psychology of polarization/intergroup conflict. We found that while conventional wisdom often asks us to start with debates and rationale arguments, bridging divides actually requires that we start with the heart to create a foundation for meaningful connection. This specifically means each side extending trust and engaging as equals, with those in privileged positions accepting the need for reflection on the impact of the systems that advantage them over others and those experiencing marginality being willing to accept bridge-building as a necessary step on the road to equality. This work can be so tricky that it may require individual self-reflection/caucus work until there is enough open heartedness to cross the divides. Once trust is established, working together on areas where there is shared interest/agreement (there always is one!) is the next most useful step in bridge-building. It creates meaningful contact and builds relationships with the ‘other.’ Only after relationships have been well-established can deeper engagement around rationality for systems change occur. The perspective-taking and perspective-giving necessary for rationale discourse and emotional wrestling to change systems can only occur when we have humanized each other.
Being a Bridge
Taking on this stance of being the bridge is not easy. Bridge-building comes with self-sacrifice and an unflinching commitment to loving all humanity. In organization development and systems change, we call this stance that models and invites others into the behaviours and actions that represent the change we seek, using the self as an instrument of change. As a leader, it involves shifting into dialectical leadership (see full article here) which proposes six ways of leading in polarized contexts. This includes 1) understanding that we are living in polarizing times with many opposing ways of thinking that requires dialectical approaches; (2) making space for understanding complexity; (3) holding and making space to hear differences; (4) Finding areas for agreement by modelling possibility; (5) communicating in ways that build trust through compassionate storytelling as well as rationality and (6) galvanizing action.
Doing all that requires significant personal work. For those facilitating bridge-building across differences in organization development or systems change, it requires, at a minimum, the capacity to:
- Start blank – let go of biases
- Build relationships
- Focus on narrative understanding – what is their story, motivations, human needs?
- Stay open to the possibility of transformation
- Engage in continuous self-development
The discipline of transformative self-development this requires of all of us, those experiencing marginality as well as those with privilege, is asking and answering in these times:
Who am I?
Where do I belong?
What is my calling?
The answers to these questions will guide you in determining how to be a bridge in the relationships, groups and systems that you are called to be a part of transforming for positive change in this moment in history. For me, I continue to stand in the faith and conviction as Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that the universe is on the side of love and justice for humanity (and all living beings and the planet). I will continue to call for and work to be a bridge in my spheres of influence towards that future.
——-
See also: Editor’s Note: Bridging to Equity-Centred Futures in Organization development
[1] Gilpin-Jackson, Y. & Kramlich, D. (2024). Bridge-building and Belonging Beyond the Classroom, in XV International Transformative Learning Conference Proceedings, Getting Transformation into Good Trouble: Making new spaces of possibility with community and in practice. Access it via the proceedings here: pages 458-466: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z3vC3r40jVYJHOsS6JefpLniSHb-JzF0/view