campbellm@topaz.decus.org (04/21/91)
The following article was submitted for the DECUScope (the DECUS membership-wide publication) issue that will appear sometime in May. Since the issue it concerns goes to the voters this week, I have decided to augment the DECUScope printing by submitting it to several electronic forums. Please note that I am not directly tied to INTERNET, so please send replies to: CAMPBELLM@DCSA1.DECUS.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------ DECUS Organizational Audit - Another View Milton Campbell The past (and probably this) issue of DECUScope contain a status update on the DECUS Organizational Audit from the President of the U.S. Chapter. From the descriptions I have seen so far, you might draw the conclusion that the current proposals for DECUS reorganization are technical in nature and not very controversial. This is far from the case. There is a significant group of DECUS members who take strong exception to the proposals. I am one of those people. While the issue is fairly complex, I would like to try to explain why I think these proposals will be detrimental to the DECUS organization. While there are many aspects to the reorganization, the most controversial seems to be the reorganization of the Board of Directors and the Management Council. Currently, the Management Council is composed of the heads of the DECUS committees (called "Units") that organize most of the activities of DECUS. These units are: the Special Interest Group (SIG) Council, The National Local Users' Group (LUG) Council (NLC), the Symposia Committee, the Seminars Committee, Library Committee, and the Communications Committee. Each unit elects its own chairperson to lead that unit and serve as its representative on the Management Council. The (elected) vice chairs of the SIG Council and the National LUG Council also serve on the Management Council. In any organization, people tend to understand their own constituencies best. The Management Council members are no different. Since each is elected by their committees, the views of those committees will tend to carry the most weight. The Board of Directors has a different constituency: the general membership. I believe that there will always be "friction" along the interface where these two groups with somewhat different constituencies meet. Currently, this boundary is between the Board of Directors and the Management Council. In the proposed reorganization, the Management Council is replaced by several committees appointed by the Board of Directors. This replaces a group that understands and is part of the volunteer community by one that takes direction from the Board of Directors. The number of organizational "levels" remains the same, but the constituency discontinuity is pushed down one of these levels. On the face of it, this may not seem bad. The problem arises when the time comes to energize the volunteer community to take some action. Currently, we have a group (the Management Council) who are essentially authorized by their position to "commit" their committees. Further, once they "commit", these leaders are obliged to actively solicit their constituents to support the action; that is, get "buy in". Under the new organization, no similar group will exist. While the committees of the Board of Directors appear in the same position in the organization chart, they will not have any "authorization" from the work force. The "buy in" process is critical in a volunteer organization like DECUS. It is also somewhat delicate to manage. Since the last reorganization six or seven years ago, the Board of Directors has not been very effective in getting volunteer support for their ideas. The reasons for this are no doubt many, but the mismatch of constituencies seems like a large contributor. The additional complication is the need to inspire the volunteer community, rather than direct it. Elected leaders have a much better chance of convincing their constituents to act than does an appointed group from outside the unit. Using such a large and strong volunteer force is not the only way to organize a user's group. In fact, this dependence on volunteers is probably the feature that most differentiates DECUS from other vendor-oriented user societies. I like this model and think that it is an important component of the success DECUS has had. I have heard that the reorganization would only effect the top 20-30 positions in the DECUS structure. In a very narrow sense this may be true, although far more than 30 people think they are affected. I prefer to take a broader and longer term view. I think the changes will affect DECUS because they are intended to change the culture from a distributed and decentralized (sometimes frustrating) organization to a more centralized and controlled one. I do not think I will like the result. Despite my opposition to the current proposals, I think there are problems that need to be solved. We need a better and broader understanding of the interface and the roles of the two groups. I believe the Board of Directors should provide the overall direction. The Management Council should translate that direction into specific actions and solicit support and cooperation from the volunteer force. This process could work better. Unfortunately, the proposed reorganization does not address this problem because it takes even less advantage of the roles the Unit Chairs can play. Surely, there are some actions that can be taken to improve the situation. For example, the Board of Directors could accept the Management Council's proposal that the groups meet jointly. They don't now. It seems like it would make more sense for DECUS to establish the vision of what it wants to become, then work to see what it takes to achieve those goals. Along the way we must work to get as much "buy in" as possible from the general membership and the volunteer force. Instead, we seem to have a proposal that treats reorganization as the end goal, rather than as a step towards a definition of a Society that does its mission better. My point is that there are many views on this issue, and the fact that a proposal is made by the Board of Directors does not absolve each of us from understanding what is going on and casting an informed vote.