Exploring Neutrality: A look into meaningful Grassroots organizing.
Discourse One. (Of two, perhaps…)
I was party to a discussion at an NPO about organizational design focused on inclusion. The objective is to bring polarized constituencies together over a particular economic and regulatory flashpoint. What kind of Executive Director do they hire? What qualifications do they need to embody?
Is there a possibility that professional neutrality – i.e. an absence of polarizing authoritative experience – would be an asset for the role and for the organization?
It would be much easier and comfortable for the board as well as convenient to hire an expert of one variety or another into the ED Role. They come with experience and a point of view. The problem is, opponents won’t trust them.
Intentional centrism is a unique strategy on how to solve fundamental issues.
There seem to be two essential difficulties to overcome.
The first fundamental difficulty the organization faces:
Letting go of the perception that the ED must be an expert. An ED should empower experts and leaders in the subject matter. This also prevents problems with single sources of charisma that can impede successors.
The second fundamental difficulty:
Attaching the organization to the notion that they must listen to their constituents. And then respond when asked. This is a bit like assisting addicts in recovery – the folks you help are the ones who ask for it.
Typically NPO volunteer Board members arrive armed with the perception that they are there to do something. They know the subject and are sure an authority is needed to prescribe measures. It’s really difficult to establish that they exist to empower others. The network behind the Board must be leveraged to facilitate the effective action of staff.
Confrontationalism and coercion are never effective, long term. It’s the shining city on a hill – the power of attraction that endures. Yet many NPO’s exist in a vacuum of their intentions.
Inclusivism and centrism objectives are ambitious. Barring broad constituent support – from both poles of the issue – success of any Strategic Plan would be minimal if not impossible. Does good science and a rockin’ marketing plan to generate followers mean that success is a sure thing? Nothing could be further from the truth in our contentious civil climate.
The wisdom this NPO gathers becomes expertise that must be put to work on multiple fronts. I’ll suggest these later.
The point is:
The organization must acquire sufficient epistemic capital to be roundly regarded as a top authority on relevant subject matter. People are attracted to this.
This means that constituent members believe what’s being put forward.
Position papers, research, etc. demonstrate deep technical intellectual competence. But subject matter expertise is just one competency that the organization must inhabit.
What I’m pointing out is that the currency of politics is public opinion. Distressingly, facts (at least presently) seem optional. Operating in the ‘middle’ these days is a bit like wandering in an undiscovered country.
Citizens are beset with institutionalized adversarial processes and entrenched bureaucracy. To them, each new agency or NPO they learn of is just another antagonistic entity that regards any concession as a win for the opposition. Centrism as an operating philosophy is fresh. Not to put too fine a point on this, but inclusivism has the benefit of being correct!
Success must be redefined in collaborative terms. Binary choices must be treated as unnatural.
Narrow Way Cafe 