Those of you who have been wanting to get involved in more senior management decisions for your org might be heartened by a recent NY Times article called Here’s an Idea: Let Everyone Have Ideas.
A quote from the article:
According to Tim O’Reilly, the founder and chief executive of O’Reilly Media, the computer book publisher, and an evangelist for open source technologies, creativity is no longer about which companies have the most visionary executives, but who has the most compelling “architecture of participation.” That is, which companies make it easy, interesting and rewarding for a wide range of contributors to offer ideas, solve problems and improve products?
The article makes an interesting leap from the original context of the architecture of participation (usually found in OSS development) to that of the management sphere. Substitiute companies with non-profits and what do you end up with? Is this a version of Nonprofit 2.0 that we’re looking at? What would a nonprofit look like with a robust internal forum for ideas and problem solving?
One thing that wasn’t described in the article was how technology can be used to level the playing field by giving the most busy employees a chance to respond asynchronously and by decontextualizing the hierarchy that usually occurs in committee meetings. Basically, anyone’s message can look just as “good” as anyone else’s regardless of their particular position in the organization.
Here’s an open question to non-profit IT directors… What kind of technology would best create an architecture of participation? E-mail lists? An intranet news forum? Instant messaging?
Confessions
My org has an informal architecture of participation (but no technology behind it) and I’ve been helping to speed it up by putting them on a fast-track implementation. We have a wonderful internal leadership group that had its ideas neglected for some time by senior management but their labor has not been forgotten. We’ll be implementing a volunteer management system because of their early work. I think the architecture of participation is dependent on how quickly management will steer in the direction of the participants. If the participants don’t feel their ideas have been empowered by a responsive management, this new architecture won’t work.
Loading ...
I’ve run this non-profit for the leaders in public health IT for almost 4.5 years, with a year and a half off in the middle. I recently received 100 user licenses, plus hosting, from Jive Software for Clearspace, their Intranet 2.0 offering. It’s an awesome tool, but it does not solve the problem of getting people to participate. In the business world, where your pay is bound to your ideas and participation, it must be easier to get participation. These tools give folks a chance to have their ideas heard and to be noticed. In the non-profit world, where you rely on volunteers, the incentives are not quite so apparent. Any ideas for how to get participation? Especially when your members are already working 10-12 hour days?
I’m loving that Clearspace tool right now! Signed up for a demo tomorrow.
However, you’re right. It’s not the technology that will bring participation. I think people are generally speaking pretty smart about participation. If there’s even one iota of possible punishment for people who speak out, then there’s no way it will happen. If you’re not used to being transparent, then people will sniff that out and start shutting down.
I noticed on your org’s website that you don’t have a blog. That’s a first sign of lack of openness. I really suggest you take a look at the approach we’re implementing. We recently attend a roundtable in Boston. We really tried to make it as open a conversation as possible. Download it here.
If you notice, there’s only one place where I said “no” but it was coming from my values system, not coming from a need to control the conversation. And I think it’s those interpersonal things that really stand out. Once people see that, I don’t doubt that they will really participate.
Thanks for the quick response. I did a lot of research on Intranet 2.0 tools… as Clearspace was being developed. My impression was that the organization has to be clear that it supports that transparency. They can’t say they do, but then turn around and punish someone for being open (within reason, of course). Most that have been using it seem to like it. Kind of levels the playing field and lets you take advantage of all the players, not just those visible at the top.
Anyway, take a look at Clearspace. I’m fairly familiar with it b/c I did a bit of writing for Jive Software (how I make more of my living). I’ll take a listen to the audio when I have a bit more time… But I’m with you on transparency. I’m trying to get there. Just started a blog for myself: http://www.mylittlenonprofit.blogspot.com. Want to make sure I’m respecting my organization with my openness (I have a sense of humor that would get me in trouble if I let it out). That’s the line I walk. Once I figure out how to connect my Clearspace blog with my web site (just need time to figure it out), you’ll see it out on the naphit.org site. Thanks again for your thoughts!