fairness, chaos, structure, transparency
So we're in those early stages of organization these days with the bike Organizing (the first usage being the "putting things in order" version and the latter being the advocacy-outreach/power-to-the-people version). It's a small group, with a limited agenda. I'd like to think that the most important reason for it to exist is to make it easy for friendly folks to meet other friendly folks and get out and ride together. But at last fall's inaugural group "event" ride (other than the weekly Sunday rides), the turnout was high enough that it seemed like there was reason, and motivation, and enough people interested/concerned that it could become something more than "just" getting together to ride.
In these early stages, it's a lot of ideas floating around. What to do, how to do it, who should do it, etc. And there's the rub. With a small grass-roots group of concerned citizens, everyone should have an equal voice. There's no authoritarian figure running the show, because the show doesn't exist without the small group of concerned citizens. But if everyone has an equal voice, the conversation is more like a crowded bar - lots of fragments of topics, dynamically floating from one to the other. And while a couple people hit it off, most people go home unchanged from when they walked in - other than having spent their time and money.
I was agonizing for a while about this. A sympathetic friend, to whom I would bitch and complain, would occasionally challenge me to show leadership/ownership and forge ahead in the group. Ostensibly, her thesis was that the chaos was because no one was willing to stand up and take responsibility, so no one knew to whom to look - thus the chaos. But the tradition of authoritarian organizations that shut out minorities (read: gender, race, sex, religion) won't work here. But "structurelessness" doesn't really work either. She left me a copy of an article that's apparently canonical when it comes to the organizational challenges of second-wave feminism. The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman makes good points about how intending a perception of a flat structure can easily lead to a structure more corrupt and elitist than one vertically/pyramidally organized. I found myself nodding along with it - it's not just the bike group, but the small companies I've worked for exhibit similar sorts of dysfunction.
While few people are interested in the formalities of by-laws and the like, sometimes they are necessary.
and when it's a group in the early stages, but with ambition, I find:
So what do I take away from the article? Well, secretly I whisper to myself "hey look, all this time - you're more than not wrong about the world, you were right again." But more importantly that there's no reason to try to subjugate my instincts just because they were the indoctrinations by the straight white male oppressor. And just because I'm perceived as the straight white male oppressor with a shave and a haircut doesn't mean that I need to endear myself by putting on a uniform of disconformity or antitraditional style to fit in. There are plenty of ways of being effective, including the ones already known. I've advised others to "just be who you are" - I should have been listening to myself more. I don't need to put on an affected display of fairness fetishization to be even-handed and respectful of peers. The truth will be known. Eventually, always. Structure and organization can respect the individual, and if the individual "wants in" to a particular part of the structure, the way in is obvious to all.
7 comments:
Are those things that look like testicals supposed to be wheels under the fist?
Not that either makes much sense...
What are "testicals"?
If you mean testicles - then yes, they are wheels. It's a graphic used by Critical Mass people. You know, power-to-the-people and everything.
If you're looking for references, see below.
If you're just saying it "doesn't make sense" for the sake of saying so, then there's nothing I can do for you. You'll have to ride that pony to somewhere else.
http://www.saltcycle.com/2007/10/critical-mass-will-have-to-wait-till.html
http://stencilpunks.mattrunningnaked.com/critical_mass.gif
Use of an upraised fist is nothing new. The Black Power movement uses it (surely you've seen this photo at some point: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Carlos-Smith.jpg )
and even earlier (graphically) in the TVA
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/obituaries/13bond.html
Howard Stern has even appropriated it for commercial interest:
http://www.nysun.com/article/25661?page_no=2
i've participated in incredibly useless (except for the very few committed people--the people who do the work) pyramid structured boards. many pyramid structured boards exist merely for their own existence. work does not get done.
no matter how sloppy it might be perceived, work is getting done with bike ypsi.
i think bike ypsi has had a fine start. we have participation from various parts of the community. we did old fashioned fliering and word of mouth and got over 60 people out to our first event--and also ended up with the beginnings to a media contact list.
Most of the people who come to the table to plan the life of bike-ypsi i have met for the first time through bike ypsi.
I do think venue made our first bike ypsi spring ride and festival meetings difficult. we do have a few very dedicated people who have taken up tasks and done a ton of work. k has spent hour upon hour putting stuff together, planning, etc. i spent a long time plugging in emails, addresses, and phone numbers into a master contact list--creating a semblance of organization. TC has busted ass. TL has helped come up with ride routes; you've done a lot both organizationally and ride wise. all through the fall, G was super dedicated to making sunday rides happen. A is willing to design, after a logo contest that was orchestrated by a few folks (some who cannot always make meetings but are willing to offer time), print letterhead. And we have other people at the table who are taking up the reigns and doing (or willing to do work).
what i am saying is it is not all chaos that has occurred thus far. A lot of directed energy has gone into planning. A lot of work has taken place. Frankly, more work has taken place by more people than the work that i and few struggled to make happen on one board (that will go unnamed, but has a big name) i was on for a while.
In the end, those same people who have done the work thus far will continue to do the work. i have seen it time and time again--board after board after working board after working committee after board. The workers do the work...and hopefully every so often you stumble upon more people willing to get shit done and they join the fold.
To The Injector,
I think Biscodo's posting was truly written with love (for Bike Ypsi). It is not that the work is not getting done, but rather a pause to consider HOW it is getting done. I agree with him that process matters and that thinking about how the work gets done is valuable.
It is not lost on any of us that you and K have done far more work than the rest of us. Burning out your best people, however, is not a smart way to go about waging the revolution. Besides, if more/new people don't get involved doing meaningful work, they aren't going to feel invested. There are good reasons to spread the work around. It can't be lost on you that since you and K called the first meeting, you've had to run every meeting since then? Why is that? Is that what you want to be doing?
And now my more general thoughts on the matters at hand:
I'm actually not lobbying for hyper-structure. I've done my time with Robert's Rules of Order and watched how those (ahem, including myself) who know the ins and outs better can railroad the proceedings. Elaborate organizational models can create more work (because they do require time and maintenance), decrease flexibility, really inhibit the fun/social aspects, and intimidate new people.
With that said, I'm all for transparency. That is ultimately the check on any organizational style. But there are ways to achieve transparency with many different organizational models. Joreen's point in the Tyranny of Structurelessness was that there is no such thing as structurelessness. So pick your structure, be honest/upfront about what it is, and make sure that it matches your membership and goals.
For Bike Ypsi, I see three issues: 1)internal vs. external organizational structure (how do we work as a group vs. how do we present/access/be accessible to the outside world) 2)fitting structure to the goals/members of the group 3)getting more explicit about how we work.
The goals of Bike Ypsi are heavily focused on promoting positive bike culture. That means the social aspects of the group -- that people feel welcome and heard -- matter. A more relaxed meeting style has encouraged this in the past, but one thing we should consider is that our current style will start working against us... probably right after the Spring event when we have energized new people and they will want to join up. To these new people, our little merry band of folks who are getting to know each other quite well will appear rather clique-ish and (unintentionally) exclusionary. It will be hard for new people to step in.
Think about... at 2pm on May 4, when someone walks up to you and says "this was a great event. How do I join Bike Ypsi?" what will you say? What does it take to be a "member"? This whole issue speaks to a point Biscodo has raised elsewhere... namely, how do we look to outsiders? Do we look accessible? We should be fairly accessible and that might take more conscious work on our part, especially as the core group gets to know each other better... (of course we do also need to protect the group from time wasters/agenda stealers).
In any sort of voluntary organization such as this, there is a need for consensus (which is a valid decision-making model, but must be explicitly committed to and consistently practiced). Consensus makes much sense for a group like ours. If we can't generally agree, then individuals will not stick around. This isn't like a union where we have structural attachments to the organization that will hold us to it even if we feel ignored or that wrong choices are being made. If I don't feel heard in the group, I'll walk. We all will. That is the nature of the beast -- so hierarchical or highly formal/rigid structures won't work. The group won't hold together. In this way, the very flexible, open, meandering nature of the Bike Ypsi does work. But there is plenty of room to discuss how to make that flexibility fair and explicit.
I'll end these ramblings by saying that we will, at some point, need to discuss some of these issues in more depth. How do we decide the goals of the groups? How can we divide the work? How do we make ourselves accessible without opening ourselves up for pedestrians to wander in off the street, monopolize a meeting, and never do any work? How do we want to make decisions?
Zoe - deletions and re-posting accomplished (check!) de-silli-fication complete (check!) typos removed (check!)
wow. I didn't mean to be so provocative. I... well... heck, I was just talking about what I've been thinking about.
My original post wasn't meant to criticize anyone, and I hope no one took it that way. It was more about the notion of (perceived) structurelessness... it seems I might not have gotten that across. That fairness and consensus within the group is achieved through transparency more than it is through "non-structure".
Injector - I *do* agree with you that things have been getting done in Bike Ypsi. There's no doubt about that. And I also agree with you about the people getting it done - those who engage and invest themselves and do the work. That's the ONLY way that things ever get done - in structures flat, pyramidal, hub, whatever. I, too, have been part of groups/committees that fetishize structure to the detriment of the goal. Where the result of a meeting is not decisions and action, but whispered comments after about how much a waste of time it is and how it only serves the ego of the top of the org chart.
As far as what Zoe the Wonder Dog's comments, I have to say that I wish I had explained my point as well as she did for me.
And yes, the spirit in which my original post was written was Bike-Ypsi-affectionate introspection.
We want Bike Ypsi to attract fellow cyclists. We want it to be fun and positive. And... (and this is where my dreaming, aspirational mind takes over) we also want it to grow, have strength, and effect change in Ypsi. While city council members are ostensibly responsive to the voices of their individual constituents, there is something a bit more persuasive if the voice is that of a group that is organized, determined and effective.
We do want those signs taken down, restriction ordinances repealed, bike lanes allotted, racks installed, bike-friendliness institutionalized, right? I know I do.
I want to follow-up on all of this, but maybe we should devote some time to talking about this organization issue as a group.
I did not think biscodo had non-affectionate intention with the original post. Nor, did i mean to suggest that k and i are doing all the work, cause while we do a lot so do other people.
and i like the spreading of work among various people, and i like that new people show up to meetings and take on work--actual work that needs to be done.
i do think a discussion of goals and organizational style is in order. Perhaps we can devote some time to this at the march 24 meeting.
until then...thanks for the discussion...
Post a Comment