Social Network for RSA Fellows
What might a Post Bureaucratic RSA look like?
I was initially sceptical when "21st century enlightenment" popped up as the new tag line for the RSA. What does it mean? How was the decision made? Were Fellows asked if we wanted to wear that tee-shirt?
I mentally bridled when Matthew then went on to say, on his blog, that 21ce was now the mission of the RSA, and all would be revealed in the annual lecture he gives on June 17. The lecture is evolving on Matthew's outward-facing blog, with some high-level philosophical discussions I can't pretend to understand. Isn't this a bit top-down and at odds with the ideas of openness, accessibility, social inclusion and sustainable citizenship that are part of the new enlightenment?
However I've come round to thinking that the idea of 21ce, and the way it is being developed, could be rather good for the RSA ... if we join in and help Matthew in developing his ideas.
Firstly, there is now an outline of the lecture here that starts to make a lot of sense. Secondly, there is also an editable wiki that gives more opportunities to contribute. Thirdly, there is a section on the RSA as a Post Bureaucratic Organisation ... the sort of organisation that the 21st century needs. Matthew characterises those as having:
• Authenticity and uniqueness
• Accessibility and populism
• Brand strength and stretch
• Corporate savvy
By making this direct connection to a smaller domain of activity we can all engage with - our RSA and its work - Matthew really puts his ideas on the line. If the higher ideals of 21ce spelled out in the lecture don't resonate with the way Matthew and staff - and Fellows - are running the RSA, we can challenge. Even better, we can contribute our own ideas, in advance of the lecture, on what a Post Bureaucratic RSA should look and feel like.
But first, what is a PBO? Wikipedia offers this:
"Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the post-bureaucratic organization, in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct
contrast to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision making rules rather than decision making rules. This sort of horizontal decision making by consensus model is often used in housing cooperatives, other cooperatives and when running a non-profit or community organization. It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people who normally experience oppression in groups".
The RSA hasn't got here yet - but things are changing, not least in the new Fellowship Council of 40 elected and appointed Fellows, where chair and deputy - Tessy Britton and Paul Buchanan - are leading evolution of new ways of working creatively and non bureaucratically in partnership with staff. Just look at the groups on this site to see what's going on.
This give us a practical way to explore what RSA as a PBO might mean.
I'm involved in the Digital Engagement group, set up by Vivs Long-Ferguson (staff) and Jemima Gibbons (Fellow). We had our very lively first session recently, and it generated a lot of discussion relevant to Post Bureaucratic organising ... because it is digital, social media that offer one most powerful way to mix hierarchical and flat structures.
PBOs aren't self organising ... but they do require new or revised roles. I think one of them is that of social reporter ... someone who helps make sense, join up, help out and also play the part of critical friend in the messy PB environment. Tessy explored here how we may all need to take on some of these community building tasks.
I've written more about social reporting here.
Anyway, it seems to me that the groups set up on this site are definitely Post Bureaucratic, and offer a terrific opportunity to explore, bottom up, what Matthew is advocating from his inevitably top-downish position.
One of the issues that doesn't go away in Post Bureaucratic structures is that of power and control ... who knows what, who can decide, who can influence. Just as there are dangers in bureaucratic structures that the hierarchies and procedures exclude people from influence, there are other dangers in PB organisations ... lack of clarity about what's going on, lack of accountability, and lack of access for those not confident with social media.
I think one role of the social reporter is to try and stand on the side of those not at the centre (wherever that may be), and challenge the group, network, non-hierarchy to be open, transparent, participatory - and explicit.
With that in mind I'm going to have a crack at some draft Terms of Reference for the Digital Engagement group. In the Post Bureaucratic Organisation everyone has to do their bit of bureaucratic.
What do you think a Post Bureaucratic RSA might be like? Ideas here, or on Matthew's wiki.
Update: I've added the Terms of Reference, and edited this post.
I mentally bridled when Matthew then went on to say, on his blog, that 21ce was now the mission of the RSA, and all would be revealed in the annual lecture he gives on June 17. The lecture is evolving on Matthew's outward-facing blog, with some high-level philosophical discussions I can't pretend to understand. Isn't this a bit top-down and at odds with the ideas of openness, accessibility, social inclusion and sustainable citizenship that are part of the new enlightenment?
However I've come round to thinking that the idea of 21ce, and the way it is being developed, could be rather good for the RSA ... if we join in and help Matthew in developing his ideas.
Firstly, there is now an outline of the lecture here that starts to make a lot of sense. Secondly, there is also an editable wiki that gives more opportunities to contribute. Thirdly, there is a section on the RSA as a Post Bureaucratic Organisation ... the sort of organisation that the 21st century needs. Matthew characterises those as having:
• Authenticity and uniqueness
• Accessibility and populism
• Brand strength and stretch
• Corporate savvy
By making this direct connection to a smaller domain of activity we can all engage with - our RSA and its work - Matthew really puts his ideas on the line. If the higher ideals of 21ce spelled out in the lecture don't resonate with the way Matthew and staff - and Fellows - are running the RSA, we can challenge. Even better, we can contribute our own ideas, in advance of the lecture, on what a Post Bureaucratic RSA should look and feel like.
But first, what is a PBO? Wikipedia offers this:
"Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the post-bureaucratic organization, in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct
contrast to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision making rules rather than decision making rules. This sort of horizontal decision making by consensus model is often used in housing cooperatives, other cooperatives and when running a non-profit or community organization. It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people who normally experience oppression in groups".
The RSA hasn't got here yet - but things are changing, not least in the new Fellowship Council of 40 elected and appointed Fellows, where chair and deputy - Tessy Britton and Paul Buchanan - are leading evolution of new ways of working creatively and non bureaucratically in partnership with staff. Just look at the groups on this site to see what's going on.
This give us a practical way to explore what RSA as a PBO might mean.
I'm involved in the Digital Engagement group, set up by Vivs Long-Ferguson (staff) and Jemima Gibbons (Fellow). We had our very lively first session recently, and it generated a lot of discussion relevant to Post Bureaucratic organising ... because it is digital, social media that offer one most powerful way to mix hierarchical and flat structures.
PBOs aren't self organising ... but they do require new or revised roles. I think one of them is that of social reporter ... someone who helps make sense, join up, help out and also play the part of critical friend in the messy PB environment. Tessy explored here how we may all need to take on some of these community building tasks.
I've written more about social reporting here.
Anyway, it seems to me that the groups set up on this site are definitely Post Bureaucratic, and offer a terrific opportunity to explore, bottom up, what Matthew is advocating from his inevitably top-downish position.
One of the issues that doesn't go away in Post Bureaucratic structures is that of power and control ... who knows what, who can decide, who can influence. Just as there are dangers in bureaucratic structures that the hierarchies and procedures exclude people from influence, there are other dangers in PB organisations ... lack of clarity about what's going on, lack of accountability, and lack of access for those not confident with social media.
I think one role of the social reporter is to try and stand on the side of those not at the centre (wherever that may be), and challenge the group, network, non-hierarchy to be open, transparent, participatory - and explicit.
With that in mind I'm going to have a crack at some draft Terms of Reference for the Digital Engagement group. In the Post Bureaucratic Organisation everyone has to do their bit of bureaucratic.
What do you think a Post Bureaucratic RSA might be like? Ideas here, or on Matthew's wiki.
Update: I've added the Terms of Reference, and edited this post.
Tags: digitalengagement, postbureaucratic, rsade
Views: 42
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Briggs on -
Excellent, thought-provoking post, David.
PB orgs are clearly not non-orgs. There probably is still the need, when you have large groups of people involved, to make sure everyone knows what they are meant to be doing and why they are doing it. Direction is important!
There are a number of connections with the digital stuff here. Most importantly I think is that PB orgs are those which have kind of been filtered through the internet -could you have PB orgs without the net? I suspect probably not.
Using the DE group as a test bed of PB organising sounds sensible. We still need strategy and direction, the methods through which we put those into action are different and new.
-
Permalink Reply by Tessy Britton on -
Thanks for such an interesting post David - lots to discuss here! Overall I feel that we are creating our own new type of model, not necessarily following existing ones.
One example of this is the Wikipedia definition of a PBO. While dialogue is essential, my own view is that on some of the more difficult issues Fellowship Council are working on with RSA staff and Fellows (Regions Review, Project Frameworks etc) that what is required is far tougher than consensus. The primary difference is that we are seeking novel and creative solutions, not negotiating outcomes, or brokering controls. Co-creation is very different to consensus I feel?
What is also interesting about trying to work without any unnecessary bureaucracy is that it is a much more challenging and dynamic environment, and because it is quite an uncommon way of working not everyone feels comfortable with the uncertainty that it brings with it. So the openness and transparency is energising and exciting but perhaps we need to consider more how we make sure everyone has a necessary degree of control to make dialogue as fruitful as possible? How do we do this when everyone might fell the need for more or less structure? I was interested that you drafted Terms of Reference for the Digital Engagement Group for example - no other working groups have felt the need for this? Why a Terms of Reference and not just an Action Plan for example?
You know that I support social reporting wholeheartedly, but reflecting on experiences to date with the Working Groups, I think the Working Groups themselves are a primary vehicle for challenging the issues very directly and are being most insistent on openness, transparency etc. Because they are led and driven by RSA staff, Fellowship Council and Fellows in *complete partnership* I see examples where they are challenging Fellows to be creatively driven and forward-looking rather than conservative and hierarchical.
These fresh dynamics are fascinating - and worthy of examination and comment - which is why the Fellowship Council has adopted an Action Research model to our work and will be constantly reflecting how and what we are doing. Your suggestion of standing on the side and challenging would in normal circumstances work well - but in these circumstances - if you are to fully understand the complexity then you need to be in the centre - involved. Knowledge creation through immersion.
Pic below from Stephen Downes
-
Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on -
Thanks Tessy for helping take these issues another step forward, with a useful mix of theory and practice.
Starting from the practical internal processes of the Digital Engagement group: while we had some very useful action areas we didn't - in the time available - manage to embed those in any thinking about what an overall strategy might be, who would lead development of this, or how decisions would be made. The danger then is that we fall into discussion of tools, without adequately focussing on user needs, context ... and so bad decisions are made. I'm a bit obsessive on that, after co-authoring with two other Fellows the SocialbySocial book which RSA now kindly distributes ... and because of the history of past RSA network development.
Dave Briggs took things forward by developing an outline strategy document which takes account of the action areas, but also pushes us to consider purpose, users and activities first.
From an external perspective, I also believe that it is important that the work of groups is understandable and accessible to anyone interested. Unless there is clear documentation about who is doing what, and why, the groups have no wider accountability. Again, we had a summary of the group discussion useful for internal use, but - in my view - needing a bit more context and precision for a wider audience.
I was also concerned - from the summary provided of the meeting - that no further face-to-face meetings were planned, that feedback and reporting to Council for decision-making were to be directed through a member of staff, rather than through further discussion. See #RSAde Meeting - what did we talk about?
That doesn't seem to be either action research or complete partnership.
So - drafting the Terms of Reference was a practical action to try and define purpose, roles, responsibilities etc in a situation where it seemed to me the group was becoming consultative rather that co-creationist.
I think the idea of immersive, collaborative action research is terrific - if people know that's what they are volunteering for, and if that approach is appropriate to the task. I don't think it is the way to develop a highly complex online system, or even to represent the interests of Fellows in that development.
I know that in trying to evolve the practice of social reporting I am not doing very well in balancing the "make sense, help out, join up" with the critical friend role (explored here). Maybe they just don't mix.
But that isn't to say that the Council, and its working group, should not be subject to some critical appraisal. As I understand it, the role of Council is to represent the interests of Fellows. Where that can be done in creative collaboration with staff I'm all for it. But if older ways of working creep in - and they are bound to do so - then I think it is fair enough for a Fellow (whether they call themselves social reporter or not) to raise the issue. Otherwise co-creation drifts into co-option.
I hope you will take this as a constructive contribution to the discussion of what a Post Bureaucratic RSA (and Council) might be. And although I have picked on some procedural issues in the Digital Engagement group, I would like to confirm great admiration for the work Vivs Long-Ferguson is doing, with Jemima Gibbons, in moving us forward.
I hesitate to say this, but I do believe it would be a great help if there were some guidelines for the ways that groups should operate, how decisions are to be taken, and what is involved in the Action Research process you describe.
On my part I'll think further on whether my social reporting can make a useful contribution. And if people say - publicly or privately: "David, you are just being a pain" then I'll take that very seriously.
Where you are: Regions & Worldwide
Visit the Where are you page on the RSA website for details of local activities, events and social networks.
Connect with local Fellows and update your details on the Fellowship Directory
RSA Vision
RSA Animate - The Big Erase
 |
For those die-hard RSA Animate fans, here's a little glimpse at what we like to do after all that hard work. That's Andrew 'never knowingly-not-wearing-a-stripey-top' Park - the illustrator extraordinaire behind the RSA Animate images. For all those who've asked about prints and PDFs - they are available to download and buy on Cognitive Media's website. Cognitivemedia.co.uk
|
From: theRSAorg
Views: 14243
  487 ratings
|
| Time: 00:31 | More in Film & Animation |
About the RSA
RSA Events
Are Genes Us?
Donna Dickenson, professor of medical ethics and humanities at Birkbeck College takes aim at the simplistic view that genes command and we obey.Suggested hashtag for Twitter: #RSAgenes
How Much Is Enough?
Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not an end in itself but a means to the achievement and maintenance of a 'good life', and that our economy should be organised to reflect this fact.Suggested hashtag for Twitter: #RSAenough
Connectome: How the brain’s wiring makes us who we are
Rising star in the field of neuroscience Sebastian Seung argues that our identity lies not in our genes but in the connections between our brain cells – and he describes the monumental task of mapping these “connectomes”, neuron by neuron, synapse by synapse.Suggested hashtag for Twitter: #RSASeung
Notes
Guide to RSA online communities
Created by Matthew Kálmán Mezey Dec 6, 2011 at 11:03am. Last updated by Matthew Kálmán Mezey 23 hours ago.
Apply for Fellowship today!
Created by Gurmeet Singh Feb 24, 2012 at 2:07pm. Last updated by Gurmeet Singh Feb 24.
Other social media guides
Created by Matthew Kálmán Mezey Nov 19, 2011 at 9:23pm. Last updated by Matthew Kálmán Mezey Dec 6, 2011.
© 2012 Created by RSA Networks.
