With this experience under my belt, I was even more convinced that a search for higher ground is powerful, especially when born of the experience and dreams of individuals.
How different this notion is from the prevailing assumption that finding common ground is the best way to move forward. The usual approach is to work as hard as we can to reach consensus, get everyone on the same page, and hammer out a plan, with incentives and measures to enforce accountability.
To be sure, the pursuit of common ground has honorable intentions. It is one way to get ourselves organized and ensure that we have some clarity about shared goals, what we're up to as a group, and who's going to do what. At least on the surface, it seems a reasonable way to stave off chaos and get something done.
But it's also a sure way to mute differences, individuality, and personal commitment--and to get deeds less inspired and less fulfilling than might have been.
What happens when we intentionally accentuate and heighten awareness of our individual differences, rather than rush to find what we have in common?
It may seem counterintuitive, but this may well be key if an organization is to reach its highest potential. Strategy guru Gary Hamel puts it this way: "New voices (i.e., new genetic material) must be brought into the strategy process. Diversity was a requirement for the development of life; so too is it a requirement for the emergence of new strategy."
Organizations that actively seek out and value a wide range of differences, far beyond merely "tolerating" diversity, will naturally become more alive, more vigorous, more creative. They'll be nourished as the living systems they are. So perhaps instead of trying to "get everyone on board" with the dominant voice, we want to legitimize and amplify the marginalized and muted, and gain the power inherent in mixing together people of different degrees of positional power and status.
That might sound like a recipe for conflict, but the dynamic is actually much more subtle. Recall the paradoxical theory of change: When we appreciate what's different about someone, rather than trying to change them to be like everyone else, they're more relaxed, secure, and open. We're more apt to contribute our best when we're first respected for who we are. And the effects ripple outward, as we also become more able to appreciate others.
What happens when we activate as much difference as possible?
Here's a taste of what could be: Imagine you're involved with a human service agency in your community. You walk into a large hall and see the whole system in the room: people who deliver services, make budget decisions, provide philanthropic investment, and even those who benefit from the agency's services. Vendors, elected officials, "competitors," partners. The receptionist, the CEO, the middle manager, the trustee, maybe even the janitor. They all sit together, deeply engaged in conversation, and provide the widest possible range of vivid colors from which to paint a picture of the world they want.
Consider this in contrast to the more usual exchanges of information and decision-making through a series of isolated, sequential meetings among homogeneous groups.
Using these typical practices, more often than not we end up with muddled colors that we can all agree to, but that no one really wants enough to pour their heart and soul into. We try to get after-the-fact "buy-in" from constituency groups, when we could have facilitated the passionate commitment of individuals from the start.
We may bring our better selves to common ground, but we will bring our best selves to higher ground.