organizational behavior 101

[cellio]

cahwyguy wrote an interesting entry on some basic mistakes the leaders of his congregation are making. While he's talking specifically about a congregation, the principles apply to any voluntary association. And, sadly, the mistakes they're making are not new; I would have thought more people understood how to make organizations run well. "The current leaders (and the ones continuing into next year) like to talk about the strengths of a small congregation, and this one in particular. They like to emphasize the warmth and friendliness of its people, and how they value the contributions of everyone. It's a facade. [...] What they are forgetting is that volunteers need respect, and people remember how they are treated."

Failing to take care of your volunteers -- to thank them, to give them the resources they need, and to keep tabs on them to avert burn-out -- is fundamental. When you start taking people for granted, you send the "you owe us" message -- or worse yet, the "you don't really matter as a person" message. And that's when people start asking themselves if they really need this grief. Maybe it's time to drop back and let someone else organize the events, or do the scut-work, or reach out to new members, or whatever. And then you get into this downward spiral and it's very hard to recover.

I'm fortunate that my congregation doesn't have these issues. Some of that's luck, some of it's clues, and some of it's the fact that we're large (so it's hard to really drop below critical mass). But I've seen occasional presumptuousness on the part of some leaders, and I try to bring it up with them when it happens. Because I don't want us to end up with those kinds of problems. I've also seen it in other organizations, and sometimes I feel helpless to change it.

I thought some of my friends might be interested in discussing this (either here or in Daniel's journal), so rather than just commenting there I'm making an entry here. Besides, Daniel is new to LJ and not all that connected yet. So go say hi or something if you like; he won't mind.

Comments

[cellio]

I tend to view "never attribute to malcce..." as a compact form of "never casually, without really considering things, attibute...". That is, if I see an action that is either stupid or malicious and I have no other data (past behavior), or I'm just too lazy to think it through, then I'm probably better off viewing it as stupidity in terms of determining my own actions. Later developments can, of course, show my initial judgement to be wrong, and if I have cause to be suspicious (I'm in a situation where I expect malicious actions), then I probably will think about it.

[siderea]

Which is very reasonable of you, and most people would say they do the same (you are logical enough, maybe you do. :) But I must point out there is, practically speaking an enormous bias force at work on that decision which our culture does not usually acknowledge, to our peril: "go along to get along". As has been shown by a number of dramatic experiments in psychology, including Milgram's, humans will, for whatever reason, tend to find rationales for believing nothing is really wrong in a threatening situation, even when it concerns their own immediate physical safety.

This is one of those issues which, at least in our culture, get caught up in a false dichotomy in most people's heads. The issue is seen as one of either attributing to malice or attributing to stupidity; that the issue is how to tell malice and stupidity apart is usually lost in discussions of the topic. And it really isn't represented by "never attibute to malice..."

[cellio]

Excellent points, and important for everyone to keep in mind.