7 Spheres of party transformation

“Myth 2: Leadership is about individuals. In fact, leadership is a distributed or collective capacity in a system, not just something that individuals do. Leadership is about the capacity of the whole system to sense and actualize the future that wants to emerge.” Otto Scharmer

Where does the new emerge in political parties? What spheres can political intrapreneurs utilise when they want to transform their party? This week I talked to a leader whose party had successfully coped with a corruption scandal and a party split. In most cases, this would be a death sentence. But not in this one. One of the reasons for this, the party leader told me, was regional party leaders who refused to give in, and decided to march on in spite of the odds. That re-energised the reeling party. When the centre is incapable of action, the periphery becomes all the more important. In fact the new more often than not emerges in the periphery of the party. 

Together with my colleague Nicolas Stühlinger at the The Innovation in Politics Institute, I have developed a spherical model of party transformation. It can be used for analysis, and as a basis for strategy development. Agents in all spheres contribute to the collective leadership function. The challenge is that in each sphere, people have their own and often differing interests. Consequently, each sphere can either be part of the problem, or part of the solution. The more spheres are mobilised in a transformation, the better. 

In our model, we see 7 spheres of party transformation:

• Centre: The centre of political power in the party: the Board including the President or Chairperson, the Leader of the Parliamentary Party, the General Manager or Secretary, and other select Senior Executives. As the Centre is engaged in, to speak with Max Weber, defending power and extending it, often the Centre is not the main source of new, disruptive ideas (with some exceptions proving the rule) – but it can make new ideas happen. When it comes to transformation, the centre’s function is first and foremost an enabling one. Therefore, the centre’s relation to the other sources of transformation, both inside and outside the organisation, and the efficiency of the “driving belt” between them, is crucial. The question is: does a great idea reliably reach the centre, no matter where in the party it comes from? Depriving the centre of transformative ideas is like depriving the organisation’s brain of oxygen.
• Darkside: The personal advisors close to the Centre. They often operate under the radar, and “in the dark”. As they have no political function or mandate, they are less constrained than the centre to come up with a fresh approach and can be a good source of transformative ideas. They are, however, accountable to and dependent on the Centre as a client. And the transformative quality of their advice depends on whether the Centre has recruited Yes-(Wo)men or people who stand their ground and effectively champion innovative ideas in the face of power. They can be a good source of transformative concepts and ideas, but are rarely the ones to follow-up and implement them (unless they are commissioned with a project).
• Deepside: The mid-level of political representatives and function owners, many of them at the regional and the local level. With their ears close to the ground as well as their knowledge of the logic of the political centre, they may act as facilitators and traders of transformative ideas between centre and farside. They can also act as partners in piloting new models and running experiments across the country or within the organisation. As some of them form their own small networks, they can also be a source of transformation themselves. Sometimes though they may also be running their own fiefdoms and act as veto players, slowing down or even blocking the flow of ideas. Either way, they are a force to be reckoned with when it comes to transforming a political party (and need to be included in the process as early as possible).
• Inside: The professional staff and senior volunteers of the party. They spend a lot of time working with existing structures and processes, as well as content, and are close to the extended Centre of the party on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, they often have great ideas on how things could be improved or done differently. However, for them to feel confident to come forward with these ideas requires an organisational culture that values and incentivizes innovation, with open rooms and safe spaces for discussing new ideas.
• Farside: Members and activists in the semi-periphery and periphery of the party. They are the idealists at the front, on the streets, with lots of direct voter contact. As they do not hold high offices, they are mostly uninhibited by power constraints. As “lead users” of innovations, they are a great source of new ideas. For these ideas to translate into action, however, processes need to be in place that let the great ones among them reach the centre of the party, so they can get effectively enabled there. If they are not safeguarded, they might get lost deepside or inside the party. To avoid unnecessary frustration, the framework, scope and willingness for adopting transformative ideas and concepts should be clear from the very beginning.
• Bothside: Organisations who are inhabiting the outer atmospheres of the party, on the border to the outside space. At the edge of the internal and external world, these “boundary spanners” can look both ways and provide a stage to display and discuss ideas coming from the inside as well as from the outside. They can be useful platforms for exchange with civil society and business, and offer transformative impulses. These ideas, however, need to be picked up and pursued, as bothside organisations cannot implement them on their own.
• Outside: Sympathetic but independent organisations, like think tanks, foundations, academic institutions, social enterprises, businesses, unions or associations. Their transformative strength is their independence towards the party, which leaves them unrestrained; and they bring more intellectual and organisational horsepower to the table than individuals. Often they are a great source of new talent. To be effective, however, they need a direct line – a “transmission belt” – into the centre. As the centre’s time and attention are scarce, the number of really relevant outside satellites is usually limited to 2-5.

In conclusion, there are various spheres political intrapreneurs can mobilise to transform their political party. Which one are you part of? And what would you say are the most important or overlooked spheres?