Last week I wrote an article contrasting unity and uniformity in which I said “uniformity prizes excellence; unity values broad participation.” When most membership organizations (teams, committees, movements, etc.) form, they not only value broad participation, they have nothing else. They usually come together to get some work done or accomplish something that nobody else is accomplishing. They are certainly not opposed to excellence, but participation is valued more than precision.
Eventually the organization begins to get organized and resourced, and efficiencies are introduced. Early on, these efficiencies usually increase the relevance of the organization to the members. With agendas, policies, procedures, dockets, resources and such, members are equipped and empowered to jump in with their strengths, time, and resources to make a difference. As efficiency increases, relevance to the members increases.
So, for example, an executive committee (or an executive for that matter) may, in the name of efficiency, move from framing the issues for the membership to deciding the matter for the membership, looking to the membership not for deliberation and decision but only ratification. Another example might be a nominating committee that moves from recruiting and qualifying nominees for election by the members, to selecting a single candidate (or a slate of candidates to fill several roles) looking to the membership to merely ratify the selection committee’s work. Each of these examples will very likely increase efficiency, but usually leads the members to conclude that their role is irrelevant… and that leads to the members feeling that the organization is no longer relevant to them. When times are good, members leave or are pushed to the irrelevant margins. But then when times are bad, or there is simply a new challenge and the organization needs the members, the members are either gone or ill-equipped to help.
It seems to me that at one end of the scale, staff and leaders introduce efficiencies in order to serve the members; at the other end of the scale, staff and leaders introduce efficiencies in order to serve themselves, making their work more efficient and their lives easier (I know this because I’ve done it myself… too many times).
Sometimes an organization changes and the relevance of the members is no longer an important value. For example, what started as a membership organization might turn into a regulatory or accrediting body, or maybe it morphs into an organization that primarily provides goods or services. When that is the case, it may simply be time to formally change the governance of the organization.
But if the participation and relevance of the members’ participation continues to be a high value, leaders and members need to be ever vigilant to keep their pursuit of efficiency at that sweet spot of high efficiency and high relevance.
If I hear you correctly, you are discussing the interface between "governance" and "leadership." The more leadership moves the governing process toward efficiency, the more the organization's members become lethargic and no longer own the entity. This is a move from democracy to autocracy. Leadership owns the organization in the name of efficiency, whereas members tend to lose their grip on ownership and accountability, and start to withdraw. The organization has efficiency, but it has become irrelevant to its members. Their participation is no longer needed.
ReplyDeleteIf governance is "balancing the legitimate interests of the authority structures in the decision-making process", then the leadership must always be sensitive to the "member's authority" and ownership of the organization in guiding the governance process. Sometimes this can be very messy, ineffective and very inefficient. If you every watched a shepherd lead sheep, you will understand this possibility.
Efficiency has another dimension--economic. If a leader is driving for efficiency in operations and leadership, that leader may be driven to achieve economic efficiency, also. This can cost an organization its members engagement, eliminated program or services, etc. It has become irrelevant.
You are on the right track. Keep thinking.
Well said, hard to do. IMHO, one of the main problems is that we like to organize things so that we can move onto what is next. We don't have active mechanisms for moving forward and maintaining/understanding where we've been, so we rely on order and control.
ReplyDelete