On the topic of “Some factors in how people influence each other”
I’ve seen the word “rank” used to help talk about perceived power in other spaces. Saying “they have rank” means that their voice or perspective is given more weight and credence, which may have nothing to do with a person’s title and everything to do with the “factors in how people influence each other”.
The short-hand of “rank” can help explain the “shifting sands” experience of people changing status over time. Rank can be held through the transitions of switching jobs and is also always contextual to the people in the room.
For example, you might imagine that there’s an organization where a longstanding volunteer has significantly more rank than the recently-hired new director of the organization. The volunteer knows who is who, how “things get done around here”, has institutional memory, etc. The new director would be wise to notice that the volunteer has a lot of rank in the organization, try to get to know them, and get mentored by them, in order for the director to build their own rank in the organization (unless the director is coming in to change direction, in which case they’ll need to bring or build their rank in other ways). If the director is blind to this and thinks they’ll have a lot of power just based on their title, they’re likely to have a rude awakening in several months when they hit conflicts or can’t seem to get things done.
There’s nothing wrong with rank. Many left-leaning spaces (especially social justice-oriented) and more broadly spaces made of “polite” people often try to pretend that “we’re all equals” or “non-hierarchical” which is usually quite false. It can be very detrimental when rank isn’t acknowledged or is taboo to talk about. When we pretend that things are flat, people can’t see rank as well. People with less rank don’t understand why they can’t get things done and how to be more effective when they’re supposed to be equal to everyone else. People with rank don’t know they need to invite others to give their opinions and welcome contradiction, or somewhat conversely, don’t step into being effective leaders for fear of dominating when actually many people might want them to speak up more!
So, thank you Julia for this post! Noticing these dynamics can help people navigate them much easier, build leadership, and support better mentorship.
Good point! I think of this thing as “cred”—for example I’ve never been a manager, but I’m the longest-serving member of staff at CEA and have cred of various kinds that’s not related to my formal role in the organization. So I should think about how to use that responsibly.
On the topic of “Some factors in how people influence each other”
I’ve seen the word “rank” used to help talk about perceived power in other spaces. Saying “they have rank” means that their voice or perspective is given more weight and credence, which may have nothing to do with a person’s title and everything to do with the “factors in how people influence each other”.
The short-hand of “rank” can help explain the “shifting sands” experience of people changing status over time. Rank can be held through the transitions of switching jobs and is also always contextual to the people in the room.
For example, you might imagine that there’s an organization where a longstanding volunteer has significantly more rank than the recently-hired new director of the organization. The volunteer knows who is who, how “things get done around here”, has institutional memory, etc. The new director would be wise to notice that the volunteer has a lot of rank in the organization, try to get to know them, and get mentored by them, in order for the director to build their own rank in the organization (unless the director is coming in to change direction, in which case they’ll need to bring or build their rank in other ways). If the director is blind to this and thinks they’ll have a lot of power just based on their title, they’re likely to have a rude awakening in several months when they hit conflicts or can’t seem to get things done.
There’s nothing wrong with rank. Many left-leaning spaces (especially social justice-oriented) and more broadly spaces made of “polite” people often try to pretend that “we’re all equals” or “non-hierarchical” which is usually quite false. It can be very detrimental when rank isn’t acknowledged or is taboo to talk about. When we pretend that things are flat, people can’t see rank as well. People with less rank don’t understand why they can’t get things done and how to be more effective when they’re supposed to be equal to everyone else. People with rank don’t know they need to invite others to give their opinions and welcome contradiction, or somewhat conversely, don’t step into being effective leaders for fear of dominating when actually many people might want them to speak up more!
So, thank you Julia for this post! Noticing these dynamics can help people navigate them much easier, build leadership, and support better mentorship.
Good point! I think of this thing as “cred”—for example I’ve never been a manager, but I’m the longest-serving member of staff at CEA and have cred of various kinds that’s not related to my formal role in the organization. So I should think about how to use that responsibly.