Power Play: Mission Over Ego | Shared Leadership in Practice

Can sharing power make organizations stronger?

About 20% of nonprofits have embraced a co-leadership model to increase organizational capacity, efficiency, and transparency—if the right conditions are in place.* Of course, those living the reality of communication breakdowns, uneven workloads, and slow decision-making may wonder whether shared leadership can function at all, let alone thrive.

This month, we sit down with London and Emma to unpack how Youth OUTright's three-person co-executive leadership model redistributes power without sacrificing clarity or accountability. From defining areas of expertise and sharing financial information to navigating difference and the pressures of today's sociopolitical climate, this dialogue offers an honest look at what it takes to align organizational structures with organizational values.

More than a conversation about nonprofit leadership, this episode asks bigger questions about power itself, illuminating what becomes possible when we choose mission over ego.

About Youth OUTright:

• Beck Martens (they/them), Co-Executive Director of Programs
• Emma Anderson (she/they), Co-Executive Director of Fund Development
• London Newton (they/them), Co-Executive Director of Operations

Our mission is to create a world in which all Queer and Trans youth are supported to realize their power and autonomy through self-determination. We help youth resist oppression by building community, healing, and growing together. Youth OUTright engages in intersectional and intergenerational dialogue with a focus on gender and racial justice. Our work includes programming for youth ages 11-24, training for youth-serving organizations, and advocacy for policies that protect Queer and Trans youth.

🌐 Learn more about Youth OUTright

🔌 Plug in to rethink how power can supercharge mission success.

*Clerkin, C. (2024, April 17). Co-leadership: A path to more diverse, sustainable nonprofits?

We'll see you same time, same place next month. Until then, peace.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Intro 0:03

We're profoundly, profoundly interconnected. We don't always live that way, we don't always acknowledge it. But if we're going to heal, we have to live it, experience it, and create institutions that celebrate. Can we create a we when no one's on the outside of it? Welcome to The UPLift with Tzedek, Real Talk for Real Change. Before we jump in, a quick reminder of why we're here and what we hope to achieve. We're here to build authentic community relationships and help fuel social transformation in Asheville, North Carolina. We believe collective liberation is not only possible but probable as we share, listen, and learn together. We're here for the process. However, the views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent.

Welcome & Intros

Tera 0:49

I am Tera Coffey. I'm with the Tzedek Social Justice Fund. And today we are joined by Youth OUTright.

London 0:56

Hey, uh, my name is London Newton. I use they /them pronouns. I am the Co-Executive Director of Operations.

Emma 1:01

And I'm Emma. I use they and she pronouns, and I'm the Co-Executive Director of Fund Development.

London 1:07

And then shout out Beck, who is our Co-Executive Director of Programs.

Tera 1:12

Yes. And today, Youth OUTright and Tzedek are talking power. Well, thank you guys so much for being here to talk about power. Uh, Emma, London, do you want to tell us a little bit about Youth OUTright?

Emma 1:24

Yeah. Um, we work with queer and trans youth, 11 to 24, in all 18 counties of Western North Carolina. We provide nine to 15 hours a week of programming and after school, BIPOC programming, um, emotional support, education.

Tera 1:41

Absolutely. So there's

Going Flat at YO

Tera 1:43

a couple of things that I know about Youth OUTright that's like really, really cool. One is the commitment to having youth leadership, having young people uh determine what's going on with the organization, what they experience in programming. And the other is something that's a little bit more recent, which is your power structure, which you've shifted from being a traditional hierarchy, which I think everybody listening is really familiar with. When we talk about any organization, we talk about our own country, we're pretty strict with our hierarchies. You have one person who sits at the top who like controls everything as far as um the final decision. And then that trickles down usually into a triangle, right? Of like mid-level managers and then employees, right? And in between, there are other sorts of management and other structures, but people absolutely experience this in the private sector, in nonprofit sectors, in our sector philanthropy, like that's how everything tends to be structured. But today we're getting into something that is like the antithesis of that, which is a flat structure, um, which is really exciting. And I want to hear a little bit more about it. But our listeners might be familiar with flat structures and may not have super positive associations with them, mostly because of familiarity, I bet. But also maybe they've seen flat structures that haven't worked. So I'm curious before we get into the details of how your structure works, if you had any misgivings when you guys adopted a flat structure.

Emma 3:16

Yeah, I think that like one of the things that we really thought about as we went into this transition is this acknowledging that like we live in a capitalist society, we live in a society that has transphobia, that has white supremacy. So there's really no way to be a fully linear, flat um organization when you're working within those systems. And so I think that one of the important steps we took was like acknowledging that that is the reality we have and trying to kind of dissect and break down what does power do at the organization, what happens when one individual holds all of the power? And what does that look like, particularly in this political climate, when organizations like ours are under attack and we're consistently having to come up with solutions to challenges that nobody thought we might have 10 years ago or thought that would be resolved by now. Um, and so I think that that was one of the first things that we kind of acknowledged and looked at is what is sustainability when one individual at an organization that's doing really important but very hard work is shouldering the impact, the stress, the financials of an organization that truly needs to be in existence for this community. And we see a lot of turnover in EDs and in within nonprofits. And I think a large part of that has to do with folks not being on the same page and the power structures that are at play can be challenging when you're having to deal with really challenging political environments and make decisions that maybe are outside of your values, but that you have to make in order for the organization to survive. And when those decisions are being made in a silo, that can make it very hard to have buy-in across your team. It can be very hard to actually be representing the people that you're supposed to be serving. So you mentioned like youth leadership. It was very important for us to have our youth advisory board so that young people can actually tell us what's important for them right now and acknowledge that, you know, we can have a beautifully written mission. We can have all the programs and services in the world. But if they aren't actually what a young person needs, then you know, we're just doing it for the sake of the nonprofit industrial complex.

Tera 5:28

Hey now. Big words, big truth though. Okay. So we're talking about the shift a little bit. What did it look like? You guys had a traditional structure or largely traditional structure. What did it look like in brief before?

The Transition

Emma 5:41

Previously, we had a model that was one executive director, and then we had staff that fell underneath of that executive director. Um, our organization for many years didn't have any staff. And so getting one singular executive director was kind of the first step. Um, there was an iteration where we had two co-executives directors previously at a time of growth at the organization. And I think that that was a bit of a challenge because the organization was kind of coming out of the chaos of not having any actual employees to trying to create a more stable organization. And so we had an executive director, and then we had a program manager, and then we had um a fund development director, and we'd have fellows and interns and other folks that were within that um structure. And I think that when our former executive director took another role within the sector, we were kind of in this position of, okay, what do we want to do next? We could spend a ton of money on finding a search committee, finding another executive director, looking around the country for this person. And um, we know that takes time, that takes resources. And sometimes you bring somebody in that maybe isn't a good fit because you don't have that buy-in from everybody, or not everybody was part of that process. And so we kind of started off as a um, it was really just like a pilot situation where about six months, um, my colleague Beck and I were interim co-executive directors, and we kind of took that time to interview other organizations that were doing nonlinear structures, find out what have been some of the grievances and the challenges that kind of give it that negative connotation from a lot of folks, and try to figure out okay, what would we need to do to make sure that doesn't happen? So, for instance, like how do you manage when two people are disagreeing at the end of the day, you still have to make a decision.

The Reality

Emma 7:32

Um, and I think that we've gotten to a point in our communication and like respect for one another that we're very much so able to get to a point where it's like, okay, you have X, Y, Z reasons why this is the direction that we should probably go in. And I know you're the person that does programs, you're the person that's with the kids every day, you're the one that probably has way more insights into the bottom line of how this is going to impact kids rather than me who's a fund, you know, fundraiser. I think it takes letting go of some of your ego and really acknowledging that regardless of folks' backgrounds, everyone has their lived experience and your educational background might look different than me. But if you're the person that is embedded and working with kids day to day, you probably know what they need more than I do, the person that's sitting behind a computer writing grants.

London 8:22

And so when there's math, I'm like, Emma, you got it. And like, yeah, that's what I was gonna say. I was like, we have a lot of love and respect for each other. And I think we're also lucky. I think there's like it's it is my first like real, I've done a lot of contract works with nonprofit before with nonprofits before I worked with Youth OUTright, but this is my first job that's like full time with a nonprofit. And so also this is like one of my earliest experiences of the nonprofit industrial complex that isn't just like contracted trainings around like racism and queerness and stuff like that. And I'm really lucky that I'm like, I just I like my co-directors, I like my coworkers, I like the work we do. And we don't, I don't, I'm like, I am hearing that it has a bad rap, but I'm just like, it's been fine. I can't imagine doing it any other way. It's the only way I've ever done it. And we don't, we're all grounded in our values, we're all grounded in the fact that we think each other are incredibly intelligent, capable people who have the jobs that they have for a reason. And so, yeah, there's no ego. There's no reason. Like, I don't know. It's never been, I don't, I'm like, we don't have a lot of beef.

Emma 9:36

Yeah, I mean, I've been at organizations before where conflict was constant and that can be extremely tiring. It can take a lot out of you, and it can also make it so that you're more focused on your internal survival in that situation than you are on like the mission of what you're supposed to be getting done. And I've seen what that looks like, and it's not good. And I think like what I learned from those situations is that conflict doesn't have to be a, okay, let's sit down. You did this. I didn't like the way you did that. You know, it could look like that, but I think a lot of times we're just like, this is idea sharing. This is like us coming together and talking about what we're doing and sifting through the mud of it and acknowledging that so many of the decisions we're making right now are not necessarily like, oh, this is just the general decision that a youth LGBT organization is making. This is an environment that we have to make decisions that could be the life or death of the organization. And so it takes also like having that external big view, removing the ego, not worrying and trying to blame each other internally when it's really a system that is beyond all of us and it is outside of this organization that is making the decisions that could cause conflict.

London 10:51

Hard on the system, soft on each other.

Tera 10:54

Wow, yes. Uh hard on the system, soft on each other. I love that. I think system.

London 10:59

The system, CIS.

Tera 11:00

That's exactly right. Yeah, that's exactly right. Two things have really stuck out to me around this transition you've had into a flat structure, which is one what you've you highlighted that I said earlier, uh London about people don't like this, or like hearing about like people not liking it. And I think when I've heard pushback around uh flat structure, so my first introduction to a flat structure organization was an anarchist group in Houston.

London 11:32

Oh, the anarchists.

Tera 11:33

Oh, the anarchists.

London 11:34

And I love the anarchists are my people, to be clear.

Tera 11:37

Exactly right.

London 11:37

We're still annoying.

Tera 11:38

But oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Um,

Flat Structure Pushback & Practices

Tera 11:42

and I think one of the things that was a big takeaway from flat structure was like, okay, so like with the lack of intention, which I think is the opposite of what you're naming, right? When you have a lack of intention and clarity around a system, around power itself, things become like, well, nobody's in charge, therefore we all have an equal say. And it's like, okay, so what structure do you honor to make sure that everybody then does have an equal say? Right. And if you don't have that structure, if you've even done a lot of thought around how that structure functions, then of course all you have is chaos, right?

London 12:15

Which is like also is equal say the goal?

Tera 12:17

Sure. Exactly.

London 12:18

That doesn't recommend on my BIPOC programming matter as much as my opinion on it.

Tera 12:23

No. No, exactly. But having that conversation is so important, right? Like having that clarity and understanding. I think the other thing that I'm like really listening and taking away, I think is super important, is not just do you have a clarity of the structure that you have, do you understand the system you're working in, how you're being intentional about being different, but also are you clear about you still have a lane, you still have an area of expertise that is yours that you hold. Um, and I think I've heard it now both from from both of you that when it comes to certain, yes, of course, lived experience is important, but certain elements of knowing, right? To your point, London, your BIPOC programming, to your point earlier, Emma, about back and programming, being with the young people themselves, right? Like being fully ingrained in it, having the lived experience behind it as well, is a place of expertise that then has that final voice, or rather has a larger, louder voice that's upheld, even when everybody else has like some insight, right? You provide your insight, but this other person holds this. Just as you said, London, Emma's the math person, right? Like you may be like, uh, is that really how the fraction works? Right. Absolutely. And I'm not solely on the math.

London 13:46

Honestly, none of us are math people. Um, Emma has the most attention to detail. So Emma is the final check of the math. Absolutely, right? So Emma holds that. But we do the math piece together.

Tera 14:00

Support certainly happens. No, and that's but Emma has that final piece. And so I think that that's something that's really important to highlight and understand is even though the structure is flat, it doesn't mean that then every single decision, every single person say is equal.

London 14:17

No. I think, yeah, well, white supremacy culture tends to teach that hierarchies are more efficient, but that's just not true. And so they try to say, like, oh, well, if you have multiple directors, and that means it's just going to be people fighting all day. We're not fighting all day. We have our director meeting every week. We say, by the way, this is what I'm doing. Thoughts, feelings, these are the decisions I made and why I made that decision. And then sometimes we'll be like, oh, you missed this thing, or like, oh, have you thought about this? And like we have ideas and stuff, but again, there's not ego there because we're all here to just do our jobs and support these kids. I don't care about being the right person. I literally don't care. It's very efficient that we know who is over programs, who is over operations, who is over fund development. So it is clear, like there is a delineation of tasks. And then we get in our meetings and we're like, hey, this is what I'm doing in my side of the world. We all make sure that things feel aligned with our organization, that they mesh together well, and then we go from there. And I think another part of the like, you know, balancing the fact that we have both non-hierarchy, but also there's still hierarchy in a way, right? Like we have part-time employees who don't have as many hours who don't get to make some of our decisions. We have people in our organization who, yeah, we're all getting the same like hourly base pay. But if some of us are getting a salary and some of us are getting insurance and some of us are not, like that is a hierarchical thing. And so it's like being for real about like where it is and isn't. And also, some people don't want to be directors. Some people don't want the responsibility of being a director, and I'm not gonna force them into it in the name of anti-hierarchy. You know what I mean?

Tera 15:50

No, totally.

London 15:51

Um, and it also comes with the transparency of like, like, I've spoken to organizations who their employees don't know what their budget looks like. That's weird. Our employees have access to the same budget that Emma and I have access to. Our employees have access to the same um understanding of what our grant cycles are, what grants are funding their job, when that money is running out, if we are nervous about it, how we are making sure that that money's gonna keep coming through. We did a thing where we like wanted to give part-time more benefits because we were like, just because you're part-time doesn't mean that you're not someone who gets sick or needs surgery. How could we be a trans org that supports trans people and then not provide medical leave? Well, am I gonna say I'm pro trans people? And then if you have to go get your gender-affirming surgery, you're just like screwed. That feels really hypocritical and outside of our values. And not being able to be a full-time person should not mean that you don't have any dependability in your pay. And so, like, we provide extended medical leave. And as we were trying to figure out like what this holiday pay and extended medical leave and da-da-da look like, part-time was like, these are our asks. And then Emma went and did some math and then came to the director's meeting and was like, this is what I've come up with. And then me and Beck came up with some ideas for it. And then we brought it to our all-staff meeting and we said, hey, this is the math. If you want this much of a raise, it would take away this many days for holidays. Or if you want this much of a and we did the math together and we talked about what our priorities were together. And I think that transparency also makes it so that your employees don't hate you because you're making double what they're making. And like the fact that we're all making the same hourly rate, like there's so much less tension in a workplace when you don't feel like the person who is telling you what to do is making significantly more than you, even though you're all here 40 hours a week. When part-time understands why we've made different financial decisions and those were things that we made together, it's a lot easier to be hard on the system and soft on each other because it's not my boss didn't care to give me this amount of medical leave, or my boss did not try. They see all the like Emma literally brings the math and is like, this is what I've got. If you've got other ideas of how to make this budget work,

Tera 17:48

We're all yours.

London 17:49

Let's go.

Tera 17:50

Yeah. Absolutely. I

Spotlighting Transparency & Knowledge Sharing

Tera 17:51

think that degree of transparency is something that is super necessary in a structure that that doesn't rely strictly on hierarchy, but actually, even what you're naming, even in a hierarchical structure, would why doesn't your employee know that the grants running out the pace? Right. Would wildly benefit your organization. I think the answer that comes immediately to mind, not as an answer that makes sense, but as a as just like one of the big answers to that is like a fear, right? If we tell them, then they might leave.

London 18:23

That's weird and hostage and weird and bad and manipulating.

Tera 18:27

It's exactly right. Like it's naming the that is actually so indicative of the power structure that we're talking about. It's not to say every single iteration of a hierarchy is the worst thing that could ever happen. It's just more that that lack of transparency and knowledge sharing and willingness to have input from the other side is what actually really enforces the power dynamic that people are constantly feeling that they are not just not just aware that they're experiencing, but are actively feeling oppressed by, right? Like you're actively feeling a sense of oppression within your workplace because you know that your input is not valued at the same level as the people who are quote unquote on top, like above you. That is even true when you are the person who is most directly doing the work, like knowledgeable about the work, knowledgeable about what needs to happen. I think people regularly share gripes about that specific thing. And I think that lack of ability to share, to be open and to stand tin toes down that, like, hey, I have this way of knowing this is my lane, and I'm okay with the fact that I don't have every single answer and I couldn't possibly meet every single expectation. That actually has to just be fine because like we can't meet every single expectation, right? But we can have a conversation. I think that fear of conflict and and fear of like that's the white supremacy culture is right. Because you will hold it because you're saying, Oh, I'm above everybody. So therefore I have to be better than everybody.

London 19:59

And I'm gonna secure my job.

Tera 20:00

And I'm gonna secure my job first and foremost. I'm worried about myself first, and maybe I'm worried about my organization second, but that doesn't leave a lot of space for the other people within it. So that that like supposed respect that you're supposed to be, you're supposed to have whatever, right? With everything, it doesn't really shine through. And certainly there's no trust there. When you're talking about we don't have as many uh conflicts, right, is because of that lack of ego is something really, really important because it's so, so, so, so present in a hierarchical structure. And in flat structures that don't end up working out, that often is the case too, right? The delineation of the roles is super important, but also the lack of ego.

London 20:42

And we're in a small town. I remember the names of the nonprofit managers that screwed my friends over at other nonprofits in town and didn't communicate their pay well. Exactly. I remember their names. And then when other people are applying to jobs there, I say, you better ask about that grant cycle. Yeah.

Tera 20:57

That's true. No, I mean, oh no, it's really real. There's total impact.

London 21:01

Right. Like, I'm like, we live in a small town. Like, you should always treat people right. But I'm like, one of the pros of being in a small town is you will be held accountable. Absolutely. Those things will ripple out as they should, because I chose to be a director. I chose to be someone who's trying to make sure that other trans people's bills are paid. And that's like not a joke. We need to be like for real about like where we're at. This fascism is fascisming. And if you're doing anything worth looking at, then you are target.

Emma 21:27

One

Ego Checks & Balances

Emma 21:28

thing that like our directors have had conversations about in like in respect to the lack of ego is that even if none of us are at this organization anymore, we still want the organization to exist. That means making decisions that put the mission and the youth first, not the individuals, and how do I save my butt?

Tera 21:50

Yeah.

Emma 21:50

And I think that that's a huge element of it. And I think another thing that we did that set us up for success is when we first started exploring the uh linear structure, is we were Like, okay, what are the facets that need to kind of be in this director model? And we were like, all right, we need somebody that's overseeing programs, what the kids are doing, the educational elements, the um after-school activities. We need somebody who is managing the money, who's doing the grant writing, who's doing the budgeting. And we need somebody who's making sure that the organization flows, that we have all of the taxes and bills and things of that nature taken care of. And so that's kind of how we came to the programs, fund development, and operations uh kind of sectors of the team. And we went through and created three job descriptions and we did it in a kind of matrix where you can see these are the exact things that I, as the fund development director, am responsible for and the things that I make decisions for. I have autonomy over some of these decisions because they have to do with, you know, how I'm inputting donor data, not necessarily something that's going to have an impact rippling across the team. Versus when it comes down to something that's like a to do with compliance for the organization or our 990 or something like that, then that might be something that we all have on our job description, is something that we are collectively responsible for and all held accountable to. I think some people think that non-hierchy means that every single person is providing feedback on every single little element of what you're doing, which would not be realistic.

Tera 23:22

Yeah.

Emma 23:23

It's really about understanding and respecting folks for the knowledge and the experiences and the area that they were hired to oversee.

Tera 23:31

Yeah. One big question that I think is just kind of hanging over this conversation though, because everything sounds sparkly and wonderful. And I genuinely see how this structure really works for y'all and can work for other groups. But I'm curious about how what challenges you're facing when you're taking this kind of structure out and using it in other spaces, right? Especially when people have, like I said, that people might have negative connotation with the idea of a flat hierarchy. Um, or that, like, what do you mean you don't have one boss who's in charge? So yeah, what has that looked like for y'all?

Emma 24:08

I mean, one thing that I um think about is that, you know, traditionally, like we talked about, there would probably be some level less transparency around a budget. And so, like, one thing that is challenging is rather than me being the human that holds that stress or holds that understanding and the big picture of it. Now everybody is holding some level of a piece of that. And so I think that that can be emotional. It can be challenging for folks to kind of wrap their heads around just how complex it is to survive within the nonprofit industrial complex. And so, like that could be an example of yeah, like I don't want somebody that's in a part-time position to be worried about our budget, but I also want them to have the transparency and knowledge to feel like they actually are part of this process and they're not being left behind. I think that's kind of a challenge that we have faced. And I think that there is this balance for accountability and also respecting folks' autonomy. You know, like I've heard stories from not some nonlinear groups that were saying, like, we gave everybody so much autonomy over their choices that people just weren't showing up to work or something of that nature. And so that was something that was like in my mind forefront when we started doing this structure to be kind of like, yeah, I don't need you to tell like you're having a bad day, you need a mental health day. That's great. Like, I'm not gonna ask questions or belittle you or, you know, dive into that really deep. But it is important that you make sure somebody else is doing the stuff that you needed to do. And so, like, those were kind of some of the things that like we work you work through at the beginning of that process. And I think that if you acknowledge head-on is something that you need to look at, then that makes it a lot more realistic for folks to stay driven and connected to the work and also acknowledge that, like, you know, it's a hard time to be in this work and it's a hard time to be a trans person. So um there might be some things that flexibility there that we have to look at.

London 25:58

It just looks like, hey, I'm having a terrible time. Um, so I'm just gonna flex the three hours that I'm cutting for today to next week. And then we're like, Slay, bye. That's the accountability. That's it. You're a human being and it's your life. You should not be living your life in the margins of your job. And we have commitments to each other. So we just communicate directly and we make commitments and we follow through on them. And if you can't, then we talk about it. And we're like, hey, you're clearly having a really rough time and like can't follow through on the commitments that you're making. What needs to shift? And then we shift them.

Challenging Binaries & Biases

London 26:30

Yeah, I also think that there's a lot of like, there's a lot of like white supremacy culture that gets like pushed on us in the same way that people will see trans people and they don't know what's going on. So they want to push a gender binary on them. They see a non-hierarchical organization and they're like, well, what's going on? And so then they create these assumed hierarchies that are so clearly filtered through the white supremacy that is in their mind. And so that looks like me, the young black person in the room, the young black woman in the room is often seen as not a director or Beck being disrespected because they're assuming that someone who might be, quote, visibly trans is like couldn't possibly be a boss of the thing. And then obviously it's just like people are just okay, they're just gonna assume Emma's a white woman, so they're gonna think Emma's a director, because that's what people think nonprofits look like. So it also just looks like protecting each other.

Tera 27:12

That's actually super common. I think people have this weird idea, like, oh, there has to be one person in charge, the the end all be all executive director or whatever, but which is so isolating and is not um, it feels incredibly uh not sustainable.

London 27:27

Another, I think, very important intersection that I don't even think we brought up is like this is a staff of disabled people because trans people are significantly more likely to be experiencing disability. And so sustainability and treating each other like human beings is like one, the bare minimum, but two, like incredibly important to us keeping up this organization as something that we can keep working for together.

Emma 27:49

Yeah, I think having one individual be the like one to bear all of that weight just is gonna make you crumble. Like in this, particularly in this environment, like there, you know, were periods of times where that maybe wasn't as challenging. But right now, it's like every day it feels like we get something new that comes out. Or every time I'm trying to do a task or write a grant, I've got to go search their board and look and see if they are supportive in any way. You know, like there's so many steps that you have to take to do anything within this environment that if you're like only have one person that has to bear the challenge and the sadness and the stress of that, I think it's gonna lead to less sustainability for the organization because it's part, you know, it's all of our responsibility to a certain extent.

London 28:38

Yeah, we lean on each other a lot. I have a thing where I say only one of us have to suffer at a time. And so, like,

Tera 28:43

Oh, I actually

London 28:44

there's like a weekend event. I'm like, unless all three of us have to be there, only one of us should have to suffer at the time. You know?

Tera 28:51

But you lean on each other and make sure that the suffering gets spread.

London 28:55

And then the next day, if you did the suffering on Saturday, someone brings you coffee in the house. That's right. Yeah, we take good care of each other, and yeah, it makes things and and we talk things out before they get large, which is why I think the word conflict is hard because people I tend to assume that it's negative or intense or bad vibes. But I'm like, a conflict can be as simple as like you said you were gonna do a thing, you didn't do a thing, why didn't you do that? Can you do that? When are you gonna get it done?

Tera 29:17

I love how you said that it can be as simple because that is probably something people spend amazing amounts of time avoiding that specific.

London 29:27

I don't want to hate my coworkers. We have to see each other 40 hours a week. I'm just gonna say it when it happens. Hey, so we don't hate each other next week. We all have that level. I'm gonna have to see you regardless

Tera 29:39

Of commitment and forthcoming. Okay,

Wrap UP

Tera 29:42

so I think I have a super clear understanding of what's going on with Youth OUTright, of this power structure. Is there anything you want to leave? Just a quick thought that you might want to leave our listeners with as we close out.

Emma 29:56

I think it takes time, flexibility, and releasing the ego. And I think it's important for folks to acknowledge whether or not the people that are in the organization have the capacity for that. Because it can be very challenging to break a system that's been in place for so long that folks have struggled to think outside of it. And so I think that when you're pursuing this, it's important to have those conversations up front and that when there are those tensions that you dive deeper to figure out where those are coming from. Because so often some of that conflict can come from somebody's fear of job security or fear that they're no longer going to be respected, or that they've become accustomed to coming into the room and being the one that everyone looks at and they don't want to let that go. And so I think you have to kind of internally analyze like, why do I feel that way? And realize that a lot of it has to come with from white supremacy systems and all of these systems of oppression that have made us believe that collective decision making isn't possible.

Tera 31:00

Wow. Well said.

London 31:01

Yeah. Something that we do a lot, usually Emma, because Emma knows a lot of the like how these systems work kind of thing. I feel like because Emma came from a higher education background and tends to understand these like complexities around like budgets and why we make certain choices. So sometimes Emma will be like, oh, this is what we're doing. And I'll be like, oh, why? And then Emma's like, oh, because of this. And I'm like, why? Because I'm like, I just don't know what's going on. And also it's to audit what are we doing that's going with the river of white supremacy and what are we doing that actually makes sense and is actually aligned with our values. And Emma doesn't get like mad at me or feel like I'm attacking their character or being or knowledge when I say, I just want to double check that we're aligning with our values what as we're going through this. And I'm trying to be really careful about the assumptions that we're making about how things have to work and who is telling us that this is how things have to work. It goes back to the ego thing, but it's just like be willing to just be like, why? Like a million times. And you might literally wrap around and be like, oh yeah, that makes sense. Okay, yally, let's keep going. But it's good to just check and not to get like butthurt about it when someone's just trying to double check. I think also the read the tenets of white supremacy often and think about them and go through the list and like actually inspect where are these showing up for me and my body, where are these showing up in our organization and in the work we're doing? Where's this showing up in the people that we are serving in a way that we are actually responsible to be dismantling? Tenets of white supremacy, ask why, and then hard on the system, soft on each other.

Tera 32:22

Hard on the system, soft on each other. Beautiful. Emma London, thank you so much for joining us. It was really lovely to hear hear your perspective on power. I think it's really, really oh my gosh, dare I say it, powerful.

London 32:36

Brave.

Emma 32:37

Thank you for having us.

London 32:39

Thank you so much. Yeah, this was so sweet.