How ASC Further Strengthens Already Connected Groups:
Extending The Spheres In Which Members Are Known
The same mechanism — that the more under-represented a person is in one's actual life, the more over-represented they tend to be in one's imagination — also plays out in already strong, collaborative groups, though in nuanced, more benign ways. This is all the more so in groups where membership is based on a relatively narrow common denominator, such as members of a work team, board, academic department, or community of faith. Members of such cohesive groups often share histories as colleagues, board-members, co-congregants and neighbors, and often work well together in these roles. Yet, beyond meetings, services or neighborhood functions, there may be few opportunities to understand what has brought a fellow member to know what they know, see what they see, choose what they choose. Knowing one another in relatively limited contexts is a subtle type of under-representation in one’s actual life that makes it easy to fix a mask onto that person. The mask may be benevolent, beautiful, even angelic. Yet it nevertheless obscures the person underneath. ASC processes help crack these masks by expanding the ways a person is understood. As two ASC participants remarked, “we've been congregants together for decades — and now the chance to really listen to each other's stories allowed us to begin to get to know one another as people."
Seeing more of one another’s actual features often surprises, shifting inferences about one another. For example, in a recent ASC gathering, a small group that had known one another for years learned that the farm on which one member — a successful doctor — grew up often just scraped by. One group member later remarked that learning this part of his colleague’s story reframed how he understood choices that colleague made, such as a determined generosity. Such glimpses into the journeys bringing each to be who they are result in deepened bonds. They are a joy that often moves people to want to further engage. And, in line with ASC’s compass, they often further increase group members’ desire to collaborate towards solutions more fully benefitting one another, even when requiring compromise.
In relatively cohesive groups, fellow members’ under-representation in each others’ lives may also stem from a sense of certainty about one another: Feelings that one “already knows” a fellow group member. History together can lead to lapses in curiosity and presence. And such lapses in turn generate expectations that a person will conform to just some of their past faces rather than allowing space for their dynamic, ongoing multitude of guises. ASC helps crack such masks of “who-you-were,” eclipsing the fluid, ever-changing “as-you-are” by crafting the conditions for people to get curious, inquire, and listen.
This further strengthens cohesion in already-strong groups. For example, understanding more of group members’ complex humanity gives others permission to also be more of their complicated, sometimes contradictory selves — while knowing they have a place at each other’s table. Such permission to be imperfect further deepens trust and increases idea sharing (Brown). Likewise, more granular recognition of individuals’ values, and what people have learned about moving through loss, love and laughter, helps build a “shared compass,” in which stories of others' choices make visible a wider breadth of decision-making possibilities that can reveal previously unseen ways to work together. The curiosity (of the heart and as well as intellect), openness and empathy cultivated in ASC processes often continue strengthening what researchers term "positive spirals" and "virtuous cycles" that compound over time (Halbesleben & Wheeler).
Research also documents the impacts of the relational qualities ASC processes help cultivate in terms of navigating inevitable frictions and challenges. For example, Google's Project Aristotle demonstrated that teams with high psychological safety were “more likely to harness diverse ideas," "less likely to leave," and "rated as effective twice as often.” Similar dynamics seem to apply to groups across organizational, academic and faith community contexts.