Muslim World Report

Strategies for Managing Dominant Personalities in Activist Groups

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 7, 2025 9:37 AM | 6 min read | 1169 words

TL;DR: Dominant personalities can hinder collaboration in activist groups, leading to disengagement and conflict. This post outlines strategies to create inclusive environments through codes of conduct, mediation, feedback mechanisms, and emotional intelligence training.

Navigating Dominance in Collaborative Organizing: A Critical Analysis

The Situation

The emergence of collective organizing as a means to address social and political issues has become increasingly vital in today’s landscape, particularly against the backdrop of rising authoritarianism and systemic injustice. However, the effectiveness of such groups often hinges on the dynamics within them. Recently, a new organizer voiced frustration over the behavior of a domineering member within their collective, one that consistently overshadows discussions and undermines the collaborative spirit crucial for successful activism.

This situation is not merely anecdotal; it reflects broader challenges many collectives face in striving for non-hierarchical engagement while contending with individual personalities that disrupt the ethos of shared leadership (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Implications of Dominance

  • Marginalization: Dominance in group settings often leads to disillusionment among members as their voices become marginalized or silenced.
  • Internal Conflict: The frustrations arising from such dynamics can either catalyze necessary changes or spiral into irreparable conflict.
  • Impact on Movements: Failing to manage internal conflicts effectively can lead to fragmentation and weaken solidarity among those striving for common goals (Andrews, 1991).

The implications of such dynamics extend beyond individual groups. When collectives fail to manage internal conflicts effectively, it can lead to the fragmentation of movements and undermine solidarity among those working toward common goals (Andrews, 1991). This oversight not only weakens the collective’s impact but also reinforces narratives of division within broader socio-political contexts.

1. What If the Dominant Member is Not Addressed?

Should the collective fail to address the behavior of the domineering member, the repercussions could be profound:

  • Disengagement: One-sided dialogues can lead members to feel their voices are not valued in decision-making (Akyildiz et al., 2002).
  • Echo Chamber: The group risks becoming an echo chamber, stifling innovation and entrenching hierarchical dynamics (AltaFini, 2012).
  • Factionalism: Internal strife can lead to factionalism, pitting members against one another.
  • Reputation Damage: This can tarnish the group’s reputation, attracting scrutiny or derision from external observers (Schwartz, 1994).

The failure to address dominance also opens the door to a broader narrative of helplessness within activist spaces, reinforcing stereotypes about ineffective organizing in progressive movements (Amato & Rogers, 1997).

2. What If the Group Implements a Code of Conduct?

Implementing a code of conduct could fundamentally alter the dynamics within the collective, fostering an environment conducive to open dialogue and shared leadership (Stryker & Burke, 2000). A well-designed code could include:

  • Guidelines on Respectful Dialogue: Establishing norms for engagement.
  • Equal Speaking Time: Ensuring all voices have an opportunity to be heard.
  • Dispute Protocols: Instructions for handling conflicts when they arise (Reay & Hinings, 2009).

This proactive approach not only mitigates the risk of conflict but serves as a unifying document that reinforces the collective’s commitment to non-hierarchical practices. Importantly, it provides the new organizer with a tool to diplomatically address the domineering member’s behavior by framing conversations around collective values rather than personal grievances.

3. What If a Mediation Process is Introduced?

Introducing a mediation process can serve as a crucial intervention to resolve interpersonal tensions. By bringing in a neutral third party, the group can facilitate productive dialogue around the domineering member’s behavior (Mansouri, Buckley, & Tanaka, 2007). Key benefits include:

  • Structured Environment: A space for all parties to express their feelings and perspectives.
  • De-escalation: This allows for addressing grievances before they escalate into larger conflicts (Smith et al., 2002).
  • Healing Pathways: Mediation emphasizes communication and understanding, enabling rebuilding of trust among members.

Moreover, the positive outcomes of successful mediation can serve as a model for future conflict resolution, equipping members with the skills to navigate challenges independently.

Strategic Maneuvers

Addressing the challenges posed by the domineering member necessitates a multifaceted strategy.

  1. Operational Framework:

    • Establish a collaboratively created code of conduct that resonates with all members.

  2. Facilitation Practices:

    • Implement intentional speaking time limits during discussions to ensure all voices are heard.
    • Introduce a rotating facilitator role to empower various members to lead conversations.

  3. Mediation Process:

    • Identify and train neutral mediators to facilitate resolution without external intervention.

  4. Regular Feedback Loops:

    • Consistently revisit and assess the collective’s operational protocols through regular check-ins.

  5. Culture of Continuous Learning:

    • Encourage sharing experiences from external organizing efforts or personal activism.

  6. Emotional Intelligence Training:

    • Conduct workshops on recognizing and managing emotions to foster a supportive group atmosphere.

  7. Celebrate Successes:

    • Acknowledge contributions of all members to reinforce their value within the group.

  8. Foster Partnerships:

    • Build alliances with groups that share similar goals to amplify the collective’s voice.

In essence, navigating dominant personalities within collaborative organizing is fraught with challenges; however, strategic and inclusive approaches can cultivate a more equitable environment. Addressing the nuances of group dynamics with care and intentionality is not just vital for the health of the collective but essential for sustaining social movements committed to justice and equality.

References

  • Akyildiz, M., Hazlett, H., & Pardo, M. (2002). The role of communication and conflict management in community-building efforts. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology.
  • AltaFini, C. (2012). Hierarchy and power dynamics in collaborative organizations: Insights from collective action. Social Movement Studies.
  • Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital conflict and child adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family.
  • Andrews, K. T. (1991). Social movements and the structure of political opportunities: The impact of the civil rights movement on American politics. American Sociological Review.
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review.
  • Halperin, E., & Bar‐Tal, D. (2011). The role of collective memory in group dynamics: Implications for communication and conflict resolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution.
  • Kalejta, M. F., & Palmenberg, A. C. (2017). Principles of effective group dynamics in collaborative environments. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.
  • Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological analyses of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist.
  • Mansouri, S., Buckley, K., & Tanaka, K. (2007). The role of mediation in community conflict resolution: A comparative study. Conflict Resolution Quarterly.
  • Pardo, M., Pardo, M. M., Janer, I., & Raichle, K. (1990). Conflict resolution through mediation: Practical strategies for community groups. Journal of Community Psychology.
  • Reay, S., & Hinings, B. (2009). Managing power and influence in collaborative organizations: The role of shared leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
  • Schwartz, D. (1994). The impact of internal conflict on social movements: A critical examination. Social Issues and Policy Review.
  • Smith, D., Daunic, A., Miller, S., & Robinson, L. (2002). Conflict resolution in peer mediation: Processes and outcomes. Conflict Resolution Quarterly.
  • Smith, D. N., & Smith, A. (2002). Towards an understanding of the dynamics of power in collaborative organizing. Journal of Community Psychology.
  • Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly.
  • Wallerstein, I., & Duran, A. (2006). Exploring the intersections of identity and power in social movements. Journal of Social Movements.
← Prev Next →