Current e-Journal

Catalytic Thinking Exercise:
The Hells Angels Exclusion: Is it ok to exclude “those” people?

Hildy was keynoting a conference, talking about what it takes to step into our power as nonprofits and community changemakers. Focusing on the power of “all of us together,” she talked about the first question in Catalytic Thinking.

Who will be affected by what we are considering?
And what would it take for them to be part of the decision / lead the direction we take?

A foundation CEO was the first person to approach her after her talk.

“There have to be exceptions to including everyone who will be affected,” he told her. “For example, we obviously wouldn’t want to include groups like the Hells Angels.”

Recognizing a gotcha argument, Hildy reminded him, “Well, if you are deciding not to include a group, you are making a decision to consciously EXCLUDE that group. Are you saying there are groups of people it is ok to exclude?” The CEO paused and said, “I guess yes, there are groups we should exclude.”

Hildy then asked him, “What do you think is the worst that could happen if we exclude those folks?” Suddenly his demeanor changed. The cocky smile was gone. His tone turned quiet, almost whispering.

“I guess people join the Hells Angels because they want to belong,” he said. “Maybe it’s about finding a way to include them, that addresses all of our concerns.” (When she told us this story, Hildy shared that it took huge restraint to resist hugging him.)

There are so often groups we think we need to exclude from our conversations and decisions. There are all sorts of circumstances where our natural inclination is to exclude rather than include. Sometimes it is folks we see as “the opposition,” like the person in one of our webinars who asked about excluding the police in discussions around “defunding” and reallocating police resources to more effective solutions for public safety. Sometimes it is folks we see as “the competition.”

The reality is that those groups and individuals will be affected whether you include them or not. Again the question arises, “What is the worst that could happen if you exclude them from your discussions?” The worst is usually about continued lack of conversation and communication, continued alienation and polarization, the inability to find points of agreement. It usually includes what it feels like to be excluded, and how we humans tend to respond when that is the case (which is rarely good). Opposition gets more deeply solidified as we build camps and ramp up a battle mentality.

It is rare that the folks you are seeking to exclude are absolutely opposed to real dialogue, intent on seeing you simply fail. Yes, there are those folks out in the world, and no, there is no point in connecting if there really is no point in connecting. But most people and groups want to find answers. Most people are open to at least exploring the possibility of dialogue.

And that is where the second half of the inclusion question becomes key:

Who will be affected?
And what would it take for them to be part of the decision?