You will probably see where I am going in the previous post – in that I am advocating upward causation in respect of change in organisations, just like in good enough families.
When it comes to passion, enthusiasm, creativity, etc., why should our places of work be so different to our families when it comes to change?
Well, of course, there are differences!
But these differences should not get in the way of change happening because our staff, or people who seek our support – our Focus Group – have new ideas. Morale is enhanced greatly by people having a say.
After all, it is commonplace in private industry, where the customer is king – as the saying goes. If I, a customer, doesn’t like a product I won’t buy it – so the quality or type or nature of the product will have to change, not me.
In another Chapter I devoted a lot of time to Research and Evaluation. Despite endless research, academic papers, surveys, evaluations etc. what customers experience doesn’t change that much.
Indeed, after all the research and recommendations, if they don’t choose something that we offer, there is a belief that there is something wrong with them, not us or the product that we are offering.
In many of our organisations, the customer is rarely king.
It is easy to see why this happens – and I am not being unduly self-critical. Very hurt people come looking for help and despite what most of us workers and leaders would deem to be huge effort, sometimes bending over backwards – not an easy thing to do – the very hurt people still perceive what is offered to be unhelpful, and/or are angry with us, or are not perceived to be making any progress.
So how could such an individual be perceived to be king, i.e. to know what’s best for him?
In respect of change in organisations I have often observed staff wanting to do more but management corralling them into safe but ineffective work practices which do not honour their creativity, integrity, experience, or good intention – that might really work with the very hurt person.
The management, funders etc. might be more attracted to what distant researchers with glossy reports might propose, and this may be prioritised over what a creative staff member (or family member in distress) might suggest. In many of our organisations management seems to have an aversion to staff being themselves.
But the people who matter most might be more attracted to the more creative, immediate response.
And – I will explore the implications of size in a later Sub-Chapter – it seems that the larger our organisation the more the likelihood is that we will have rules and policies that make it difficult for staff to be creative.
Another thing that, I have observed, seems to change things is the length of time an organisation is in existence [1]. I propose here that many organisations that start off radical, creative and innovative default to a kind of mediocre can’t-do-that stance after many years when the initial founders are gone and forgotten – even if they don’t grow that much in size.
Promoting radical ideas in our very early days is relatively easy because firstly, we are the founders, they are our ideas and we are very enthusiastic; and, secondly certain realities that journeying with vulnerable people throw up may not yet be fully revealed. (I discussed this earlier). This might last, typically, 5 – 8 years.
In respect of sharing power (which, as I am sure you have now realised, this website advocates) the first phase is usually the immediate response to the problem and the people are affected by it directly.
During the second phase (following some inevitable leadership and staff changes) we might still remember the early days but not as clearly so there may be a small dilution of both passion and the urgency of the issues.
By the third phase (typically 15 – 20 years) it is likely that none of us will remember the original founders, or if we do, the memories are blurred, and the initial drive, ambition and urgency might be forgotten.
Also, through each phase, the initial vision may be dimmed by funding realities, or the external environment changes, or there is pressure from the Pillars and presence of suits on Boards, all of whom combine to demand regular reports filled with impressive outcomes and outputs.
Sometimes, those of us with a good bit of formal education are committed to include very vulnerable people but then we follow the norms and practices of the Pillars from where we have come. This inevitably results in a drift to a more amenable group and exclusion of those who are not conforming.
It’s as if the world can’t tolerate eccentricity and will always drift to predictability over time.
Looking at it from the point of view of cause and effect, this is indeed change.
And if the effect is a lessening in quality of service to those most in need, (as it usually is) the cause is usually either direct or indirect pressure from an external force, or we on the inside not being vigilant in respect of the ethos of the founders and inadvertently taking on the values of the mainstream.
In such cases (I believe anyway) the original founders – who may have set up an organisation with a lot of heart but with a little less head – may not have been sure why they choose the methods they chose and why those methods should prevail.
They just did it because they felt that it was the right thing to do.
But – and this is the important bit – over many years (as I stated elsewhere a number of times), head/logic always trumps heart/spontaneity unless we who promote the necessity of balance between both are both knowledgeable about and confident in our rationale.
[1]. Karl Marx is reported to have said that a revolution should take place about every 10 years to keep a movement fresh, and – I suppose – to prevent people getting lazy or cozy!