As I stated already, change in our organisation will often occur because of necessities that arise from external pressures.
This change is sometimes for the good, but at other times it is harmful in our aim to support our Focus Group.
This is why continual attention needs to be paid to the rationale behind what we are doing – i.e. why we are doing it, the benefits of the methods we choose over other more bureaucratic or mainstream methods, the holistic, person centred approach, and how we have our rationale thought through.
Many bureaucrats, who make decisions on behalf of the Pillars, have very little appreciation of the needs of the Focus Group, or the causes and effects of matters such as trauma, or dissociation, and most would probably not give much thought to the power of the root foundations that are described in the Chapter on the Universal Theories of Change.
Also, while bureaucrats will have no difficulty investing hundreds of millions on, say building a motorway to provide vital infrastructure to increase the attractiveness of an area to industrial investment over a time frame of 50+ years, the norm for child protection or crime prevention work with the Focus Group are investments in short term (relatively) inexpensive Projects that are based more on mainstream paradigms than anything innovative or creative.
And a large part of our education will come from listening to ideas that come upwards from those with direct experience, and giving them at least equal status as the ideas that come downwards from the Pillars.
In this, it is not the bureaucrats’ fault if they don’t know – it is our responsibility to educate them.
Since the late 1980’s or early 1990’s in Ireland there has been ongoing debate about whether social/community partnership is truly empowering of disadvantaged people or a well-meaning strategy by Government – influenced by the corporate world – to further impose corporate-type values on vulnerable communities.
Many community workers that I have spoken to are sceptical.
I believe that one thing that is missing from such partnership is the voice of the less formally educated, but hugely experienced and knowledgeable partners. In order to get our needs met we have to be either clever in a political way or else have a detailed knowledge of the complex area in which we have chosen to work
Obviously I am recommending the latter. The far more powerful Pillars say “this has to be done” or “that can’t be done” or “this has to be done that way”, but in my opinion their rationale is based, usually, on relatively shallow thought and analysis.
It is really up to us, the community sector, to have the confidence and assertiveness to argue for different, more empowering State actions.
A very good example of upward causation in this respect would be someone in the community sector having a strong enough voice to object to a certain course of action because it lacked kindness, or compassion, or left vulnerable people out, and that this concern would be brought to the bureaucratic table which would in turn lead to real change. (If, after all, it we reported that money was being fiddled we would be taken very seriously). [1]
Summing up, to inform and educate, and make the most of well-meaning social/community partnership, is, I argue, our responsibility.
I believe that striking the right balance
between the upward and the downward causation optimises the chance that
beneficial change will be long term and sustainable rather than short term and cosmetic
that risks fading away quickly.
[1]. It is revealing of the Pillars’ priorities that the Charities Regulatory Authority demands that all financial, managerial, governance, human resource and similar practices are above reproach but doesn’t state that Charities have an obligation to be charitable, kind, compassionate etc.