Nick Lewis: The Blog

Techstrategy.org (a very good, and very new blog -- do give it a read) brought a very noteworthy article to my attention. It discusses the large shift in how people approach volunteer work. However, I think these ideas could be applied to the broad spectrum of organizations which depend upon unpaid efforts from large groups of people. Excerpted from The New Unaffiliated Volunteers

Call them serendipitous, entrepreneurial, spontaneous, unofficial, out of the box, under the radar, independent or unaffiliated. These are the new volunteers that do what they want, when and how they want to do it. They do not feel obligated to do their volunteer work through established channels...

...They are not interested in conforming to rules, procedures, or restrictions. They are seeking instant responses in a society that lives by push button action. They tell you what they want to do, when they want to do it, how they want to do it and if you cannot accommodate, they do it on their own. They are not interested in joining a volunteer program. They are interested in results and they will find ways to make it happen.

...Volunteering is becoming an increasingly individualized activity where potential volunteers are creating their own experiences rather than seeking the collective experience through a traditional organization. The actions of the vigilante or entrepreneurial volunteers cannot be viewed as exceptions, but should be viewed as a growing tide of response to current practices and organizational structures.

These thoughts are right on the mark. But don't take my word for. Ask yourself "why was the Howard Dean campaign so sucessful in generating a movement?", or -- on the darker side -- what is Al Qaeda's biggest strength? If you answered, "decentralized decision making and leadership" you get a lolly pop.

The trend that is discussed in this article is a part of a much larger trend: the rise of the network as the most powerful form of social organization. If you are unfamiliar with this trend, I recommend you read this brief. The document lays out a framework for society evolution. Its written by the RAND corporation's senior social scientist. It's dead on. And most frightening, its almost 10 years old. It also happens to be one of the main reasons I left my journalistic aspirations to do what I do now.

In the relatively short time I've done website development, and strategy for non-profit/political/volunteer orgs, I've seen a strong resistance to this trend. The situation is always the same -- those at the top believe they know what is best for an org. Yet, I've found myself very suspect of this attitude. And indeed history has taught us that we should be suspect of those at the top when they shut themselves off from those at the bottom. Think Vietnam. Think Iraq. Think the Catholic Church. Think FEMA. It seems to not matter the size, or purpose of the organization -- the result is always the same.

I'm tired, and I suspect I'm explaining myself badly, so I'll end this ramble in a concise manner:

• The path to power in the new world is -- ironically -- to give it up to others who share your vision at every opprotunity. The power you will receive as a result is neither dependent on a title, nor attached to "be the asshole" strngs. Its real. And your comrads will not merely respect you, they will be your family.
• Successful organizations will be those with the least amount of high-level oversight(read:red tape). The reason is obvious, if you look around. Consider the Iraqi Insurgents Vs. the US Military. The insurgents are allowed to operate in a decentralized, and modular fashion. They do not need orders to operate -- when unique opprotunities arise, they do not need to seek approval. They act. They hardly have battle plans. In comparison to the world's most powerful fighting force, their command structure is eglatarian. As a result, each node is given the maximum amount of flexibility to make quick decisions, and to take advantage of unique situations. Its the latter sentence, I think, that explains why they are by all means in the process of defeating our military. Every non-profit should take note of the lesson our Army is currently learning.
• The most ineffective organizations will be those that reward their members with power for time and effort. Such systems repel the sincere and intelligent, and attract those who hunger for power, yet want to be followers. One needs to look no further than the structure of the democratic party to see what the end effect is of this terrible, yet very popular system.

Hmmm... I'll revise this later.(probably not... oh well, I haven't blogged in 2 weeks)