|
|
|
Co-operator Theory Paper
...for
organising among equals
|
Explore Thinking behind the Co-operator
Use the |
(adapted
from honours thesis by Alex
Baumann)
Co-operator
Home > Co-operator Theory Paper
Introduction
This paper is an exploration of the theory behind the Activity Co-operator tool. While the paper will briefly touch on who developed the tool and provide a snap shot of what the Co-operator looks like, the primary focus will be on why the Co-operator is designed the way it is designed and how its three steps attempt to integrate key principles from the fields of self-help, participatory community development and cooperative group work. Context – Who Developed and Why
The Activity Co-operator has been devised by a grass-roots self-help group called ‘Neighbourhood That Works’ (NTW)[1]. Through their practical self-help experience, NTW (2008) has recognised the need for methods of organisation that are simple, accessible and non-hierarchical[2]. Many studies and reports (Metcalf, 1995; McCluskey, 1999; Thompson, Bartolomei, Corkery and Judd, 2003; Darcy, 2003) refer to inappropriate self-help management structures resulting in poor general practice, leadership burnout, power struggles and conflict, long-winded meetings, domination by some and lack of participation by others. Kenny (1999) proposes that community development structures and processes should be developed whereby ordinary people can take personal & collective responsibility for, and control of, the way in which they organise their lives. Campfrens (1997) comparative review of community development identifies the capacity of people to identify and solve problems for themselves as a core value and principle of community development work. It is from the experienced practical need for a casual yet structured form of personal empowerment & collective organisation that the Co-operator has been developed by NTW (2008). [1]
Putnam (2000) defines self-help groups as those people engaging in
unpaid mutual exchange. He says that self-help is typically located in
individual households, neighbourhoods and family structures. Burns,
Williams and Windebank (2004) define self-help groups as intrinsically
collaborative and informal in nature. NTW has been involved in a range
of self-help programs from car share programs to community social
events and community food gardens. NTW is an informal collaboration
between Alex Baumann and Chris Baulman who have been working on
developing its concepts in collaboration with many others for over ten
years. The Co-operator is one of several innovations of NTW and is
now, with the support of many others and an honours research project,
going through preliminary trialling and rapid development. [2]
Self-help case studies such as those by Butcher, Collis, Glen
and Sills (1980) show that organizational methods are typically
complex top down structures, such as appointing ‘office holders’.
On the other end of the spectrum, self-help groups also often revert
to methods of organization that rely on one or two motivated people
who drive the project and delegate all the roles. What the Co-operator Looks Like
The Co-operator has been designed to be a self-help tool in that anybody can go to the internet and freely print the Co-operator instructions in standard A4 poster format (figure 1 & 2) and watch a 3min orientation video[3]. Other than these posters, uses of the Co-operator only need standard office post-it-notes and pen/s and a basic idea for a self-help activity they want to organise such as a community garden, a street social event a local clean up day etc.
Figure 1 – Co-operator
Poster
After following the posters two simple steps, those co-operating are left with a basic organiser for their activity stuck on the wall that supports casual yet structured involvement. This poster (Figure 1) and the post-it-notes on it becomes a [4]‘jobs board’ for the activity. Improving the
Co-operator A second and final poster that prints along with the first makes a suggestion about how to reach agreement, rather than any kind of majority rule. It also invites those collaborating to improve their Activity Co-operator.
Figure 2 – Reaching Agreement & Improving the Co-operator
[3]
In
the true spirit of self-help, the Co-operator has been developed with
the idea that no facilitation should be depended on. This is a
pragmatic approach as many groups have no access to facilitation
(Butcher, Collis, Glen and Sills, 1980). NTW
has developed a self-help web resource for the Co-operator at:
www.ntw.110mb.com Theoretical Analysis of the Co-operator
Step one (figure 1) asks for people to use a ‘silent brainstorm’ on post-it-notes to ‘describe the activity’. Before looking at the theory behind why a description of the activity has been chosen as a place to start, it is necessary for this paper to explore the theory behind the silent brainstorm process that is used in both steps. The Silent Brainstorm - Parallel
and Silent Community Ownership
Group Discussion · People enter the discussion having had room to develop their own perspective and having put it before others. · All ideas are up next to each other making it much harder for any one idea to dominate. · With people physically looking at and talking to ideas on the wall people are more inclined to argue the point instead of argue the person. · Ideas are expressed in concise (as opposed to long-winded) ways. These advantages are institutionalized in the Co-operator process. This is as opposed to being promoted as group norms (Cameron, 2005) which are far harder to adhere to. It is not solely on the silent brainstorm process that the Co-operator
depends to include people and overcome the potential for discussion to
lead to domination by the strongest voices. The Co-operator offers
individuals a very particular planning starting point at the outset in
step one to address this potential at an even more fundamental level.
[5]
Where literacy is an issue the process involves using a scribe in small
break off groups. [6] Because only one person can speak at a time, the act of verbalizing ideas has an inherently competitive element. This is a well known cause of group conflict (Hendrick, 2004). The silent brainstorm dissipates a lot of this tension by providing a way that everyone can vent their ideas in an inherently uncompetitive way that is not judged or obstructed. The Religious Society of Friends’ or Quakers, adopted the use of silence in groups as early as the 17th century. This has been employed across a variety of secular settings (Ethan Mitchell, 2006). [7]
Not everyone has to contribute and not everyone will necessarily want
to, but the Co-operator provides a tangible process in which everyone
can. In this setting even the most passive and timid of participants can
be encouraged to start participating. Another key component of this
process is its ability to help the group avoid unwanted tangents and
keep focus without identifying or focusing on waywardness. Step 1 – Describing the Activity
Step one provides the opportunity for a group or an individual to begin an activity description as a reference point for all other input.[8] Individual Descriptions Group Descriptions 1. see that they all have the same basic activity concept and continue together, 2. see that they have different concepts and proceed separately (perhaps in smaller groups), or 3. they can identify common ground and negotiate difference. Regardless of which way a group proceeds, the simple fact that assumptions have been put on the table so early up drastically reduces the chances of misunderstanding and misdirected investment of time. Bill Metcalf’s (1995) study with ten long standing Australian intentional communities demonstrated that one of the greatest sources of conflict and disillusionment is the investment of time that people make on false assumptions. Whether it is a group or an individual that establishes the step one description, their vision becomes a transparent reference point for all group decisions and shared authority. In effect, step one has established a constitution for the group activity. Supporting Agreement over
Majority Rule A platform for dissent The advantage of on-line forums
over face to face Writers like Wright and Street (2007) point out that forums not only save group time, they give everyone time to consider their responses, have their points registered, record what is agreed and what remains under discussion. The fact that there is a record can also encourage people to watch their manners. But perhaps most importantly it can help everyone know for sure when the issues have or have not been addressed, when valid points are being incorporated and when they are not, when the group is in danger of sacrificing its integrity for its convenience. Because of these things, discussion is likely to achieve understanding and understanding is more likely to result in achieving a respectful agreement. This process takes the idea of ‘hearing dissent’ out of the realm of mere formality and into the realm of genuinely reaching agreement, rather than assuming that majority rule is ultimately the end game How can a group with that Cooperator culture ignore written evidence online that a point of dissent has not been FULLY explored and understood? If exploring and understanding is part of the process, rather than the token ‘hearing’ before voting, then we really do have something new. The description arrived at in step one ‘begins’ to overcome the chances for dissent and increase the chances of agreement. Beyond this, discussion and dissent being fully explored and understood through the forum and the establishment of a different culture of working with dissent will lead to agreement rather than to the disagreement and division that is inherent when voting is the end game[11].. [8]If
it was a party being organised it may be that it is described as a
‘family event’, that it will be held in a ‘community hall’, that
it will happen on the ‘first Saturday of July’ and that it will be a
‘cooperatively organised’. [9]
Far from being a leader, an initiator of an idea can rely on the
description itself to provide direction. In fact, if the initiator
started moving in a different direction to the description they used to
invite others, it is them that would have to negotiate change or leave.
This process lets people know exactly what they are investing their time
and energy in from the outset.. [10]
[11] This dangers of majority rule have been well documented (Michaelsen, Watson & Black, 1989; Dressler, 2006; Saint and Lawson, 1994; ) such as where majorities wrongly assume that they have the insights necessary to proceed and where minorities have been left alienated and resentful and even undermine decisions over the medium to long term. This points taken into account, this demonstrates that the apparently quick and efficient majority rule process is far from efficient.
Step 2 – Collective Job List
The Co-operator’s silent brainstorm, activity description and the other supports for reaching agreement represent important innovations to traditional cooperative processes but in step two a whole new cooperative innovation unfolds that moves from the way groups come to agreements to the way they put those agreements into action. Once decisions are made, cooperative or not, the way of operating for most self-help groups typically defaults back to specialised roles and hierarchical management methods. (Saint and Lawson, 1994; Butcher, Collis, Glen and Sills, 1980). While this approach works for many self-help groups, Burns, Williams and Windebank (2004) point out that self-help groups are typically unskilled or broad skilled as opposed to specialised, collaborative as opposed to hierarchical and voluntary as opposed to paid. Because of this, depending on specialised and hierarchical modes of operating has led to themes of leadership burnout, power struggles and conflict, long-winded meetings, bad practice, lack of skills, domination by some and lack of participation (McCluskey, 1999; Metcalf, 1995; Thompson, Bartolomei, Corkery and Judd, 2003). Step two of the Co-operator process begins the development of a cooperative mode of operation. In step two the silent brainstorm is used to name the jobs involved in the activity[12]. Like the description, these jobs are then stuck upon the poster for all to see. In this process everyone can: • Decide and see WHAT needs to be done, WHEN and HOW • Easily add, agree on and share tasks without meetings • Avoid one person needing to know it all, avoid having a ‘leader’, avoid group collapse on burn out • Overcome tension between the need for structure and the often casual nature of community participation • Break tasks down to manageable sizes making participation far more accessible to unskilled participants[13] • Assert community 'ownership' of local knowledge and skill development (NTW, 2008) Far from the self-help ‘leader’ who has the viability of the activity organised in their head, this model of organisation dispersed roles, breaks them down into small non-specialised jobs, records all jobs for all to see. In effect this approach automatically records and gives everyone access to the grand plan.[14] Despite all the theory embedded in the Co-operator, step one of brainstorming a description and step two of brainstorming a jobs list are pretty straight forward, intuitive and simple steps an individual or a group can take together in one meeting. While this result will develop over time the results of one meeting are tangible and are well recorded. The product is a jobs board that sits on the wall. This would seem like a good example of the sort of community empowerment structure Kenny (1999) and Campfrens (1997) refer to the need for. [12]
The step two brainstorm is guided by the description that has been
reached in step one. [13]
Instead of a specialised role like a treasurer, several smaller tasks
like collecting receipts etc. which anyone can take on will be
developed. This can help participants share and learn new roles in
empowering ways. This asserts community 'ownership' of local knowledge
and skill development which is crucial to community development (Campfrens,
1997).
Step 3 – Recording & Improving your Co-operator
Once the description of the activity and the jobs are recorded so they can be made available for sharing and further development. Step three (figure 2) then provides a series of ways the Co-operator can be improved such as sequencing and dating the jobs, breaking them into smaller parts and adding jobs steps so everyone can take them on. This step is likely to be developed over time and to what ever extent the group is inclined but even if they take the Co-operator process no further than step two they have a tremendous cooperative and organisational advantage over traditional self-help management designs. Conclusion
Burns, Williams and Windebank (2004) define self-help groups as intrinsically collaborative, informal and broad skilled. Kenny (1999) says that structures and processes should be developed whereby ordinary people can take collective responsibility for, and control of, the way in which their lives are organised. Achieving high commitment decisions through high levels of participation, giving everyone a voice, and empowering an individual or a minority to take an idea forward are all central themes within the fields of self-help (Burns, Williams and Windebank, 2004), participatory community develop (Kenny, 1999; Ife, 2002) and cooperative group work (Dressler, 2006; Saint and Lawson, 1994). The Co-operator draws on and structures these principles into a process that is simple and intuitive enough for use by most self-help groups. Through using the Co-operator the tension between the need for structure and the often informal and voluntary nature of self-help community participation can begin to be addressed. Gill Br Journal of Social Work.2005; 35: 295-296 Campfrens,
H. (ed.) (1997). Community
Development Around The World. Practice,
Theory, Research, Training.
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
