The pursuit of openness and inclusivity
In the past couple of weeks, I've been working with colleagues to set up a new discussion forum in relation to ASAE's upcoming Volunteer Leadership Retreat. The goal is expanding the number and diversity of viewpoints contributing toward organizational planning.
That's no easy task, and it's one that I think many associations struggle with. By now associations are (or should be) well aware of the business cases for improving diversity and inclusion and allowing for more open, transparent ways of doing business. It's clear that these are worthy goals to pursue. But a lot of the challenge comes in the execution. Even if you're highly motivated, it turns out being more open and inclusive isn't necessarily easy.
Often, the argument goes that closed organizational structures come from those in power clinging to their power and control. In many cases, this may be true, but I don't think it fully explains the existence of closed systems. In the article that Jamie Notter wrote for Associations Now last month based on his and Maddie Grant's book Humanize, he did a nice job explaining another major cause (and staying power) of closed systems: they're incredibly efficient.
Thus, moving toward more openness and inclusivity in group action or decision making comes at the price of efficiency, and that's often enough to stop such efforts cold. The traditional model of decision making just doesn't scale upward very well. Three people can come to a decision fairly easily, but 30 people would take much longer, let alone 300 or 3,000.
In my mind, a more open organizational model can still have levels, but the levels must become flatter and wider—i.e., more people must be allowed to be involved in meaningful ways closer to the point where actual decisions are made. And hierarchy is still OK, too, but the flow of information up and down the levels must be freer. Designing a system that can do these effectively and efficiently is, again, not easy, but as Jamie and Maddie and others argue, technology and social media are making it more achievable (as well as more imperative).
I'm curious how other associations have tried to tackle this challenge. What methods have or haven't worked for you in trying to make your association's governance and planning processes more open and inclusive? If you've had any luck (or hard lessons learned), please share.
[Also, if you're interested in contributing your viewpoints on ASAE's strategic framework, please join the discussion at http://collaborate.asaecenter.org/leadASAE.]
| | Permalink |
Comments
Joe:
http://www.openideo.com models how to put structure on an open and wider platform for input, ideation, and problem-solving. It's just one example, but I think it is a solid one.
And many writings about innovation or design thinking stress the importance of really framing the challenge well to help attract the most useful input.
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | November 8, 2011 3:33 PM
Thanks for the example, Jeffrey. I hope others will check it out, as well. Very interesting. Your point about framing the challenge well is an important one, because I think that goes back to the importance of efficiency. An unclear challenge or task begets unfocused input, the effect of which is quickly compounded as the size of the pool of people involved increases.
Posted by: Joe Rominiecki | November 9, 2011 6:30 PM
Short answer on being more open:
1. Decentralize. It doesn't have to be radical (as you say, hierarchy is okay), but figure out ways to give the periphery more power than they have now. Google 20% time, which has been discussed among associations a lot, is actually a good example. It lets employees decide what they work on, at least toms of the time. And make the periphery more visible. Let them speak. Let them tweet. Name them even if they aren't the head of the department.
2. Systems. Figure out ways for the parts of the system to work together more effectively. Unify your silos with a short-term goal. Even do things like put all your files on a central server or in the cloud, instead of creating a "knowledge archipelago" of hard drives and email accounts scattered across the office.
3. Ownership. Eliminate the excuses for inaction. Expand people's knowledge as much as you can, because not knowing means we won't act. AIA did a great job with that in the way they rolled out and got feedback on their strategy document at the chapter level. Create policies that let the people closest to the problem actually act to solve it. Zappos is famous for giving their call center people control over how long the call goes, for example.
Posted by: Jamie Notter | November 12, 2011 9:58 PM
Here's another model for rapidly including diverse viewpoints that worked well for the US Green Building Council: "Dynamic Governance, Dynamite Components"
Posted by: Kris Prendergast | November 14, 2011 5:31 PM
Thanks Jamie and Kris. Excellent ideas and examples. I'm struck by an interesting contrast as we talk about becoming more open. While a centralized decision-making structure is rigid, it's fairly simple. Building a more open decision-making framework demands a more complex structure to accommodate the broader involvement of people and viewpoints. At first, I wouldn't equate "more structure" with "more open," but that seems to be the case. It's a counterintuitive result, one I'm only beginning to understand. "Systems thinking" has always seemed to be rather abstract to me, but I can see it in a more tangible way in thinking about these various models for governance and decision-making.
Posted by: Joe Rominiecki | November 15, 2011 11:36 AM
I think one of the best ways to achieve openness, transparency, and being inclusive is to include every stakeholder group in the strategic planning process. Whether they’re members, staff, lawmakers, your industry leaders, or even your vendors, make sure they are a part of the input process when conducting the planning.
This can be done by basically going out and seeking stakeholders’ opinions, or having them complete surveys before you go through the strategic planning process, so that you have feedback and ammunition you can use to help build a successful strategy for the association. Then, when you finish the actual hardcore work as far as goals and objectives, one of the best things you can do in terms of using the strategic plan as a vehicle is to publish it and go back and share it with each stakeholder group, which most people don’t do.
Instead, they usually just finish it and start to march and implement. But there’s a huge PR opportunity and a huge opportunity for openness and inclusivity by going back out to the stakeholders and saying, “This is what we found in the research, this is our strategic plan, thank you for helping us do it, and you’re helping us to implement it.” There’s a huge buy in there — it’s kind of using the strategic plan as a tool to achieve more openness and inclusivity.
Posted by: Annie Gallagher | November 18, 2011 11:10 AM