Brad Rourke

The Old Vs. The New Guard In The Citizen-Centric Era

Yesterday I had the good fortune to be part of a very interesting conversation at United Way headquarters. This venerable organization is trying to help its 1,300 local chapters, each with a high degree of autonomy, make the shift from an old model of working (fundraising oriented with direct relationships with company heads) to a new model of working (impact-oriented with direct relationships with individual donors).

To its great credit, the United Way reached out to a group of people who work in various areas of social change, civic engagement, and organizational effectiveness. I was very grateful to be invited to be part of this group, which included a number of friends and colleagues, and a few people I worship from afar. I was part of a group that included Allison Fine, Chris Gates, Thomas Kriese, Lisbeth Schorr, Michael Smith, Tom Watson, and others.

IMG_2141-1 by Flickr user Troubadour
"IMG_2141-1" by Flickr user Troubadour

Aside from the substance of the meeting, something came up that was very interesting to me.

As some of my readers know, I have been working with John Creighton on the idea of a new, citizen-centric institution. There are fundamental differences in how institutions need to act in the new public landscape. John and I have recorded two videos (“Public Leadership Beyond Institutions” and “New Challenges When Public Leaders Engage The Public“) on this and have more in the works, as well as a study and report we hope to complete in the near future.

Old Guard, New Guard

Yesterday’s meeting seemed to throw the struggle between “old” and “new” public leadership into sharp focus. There was a very definite tension throughout the conversation. Some people, who had labored for many, many years for social change, felt very strongly that they know what ought to be done and what it takes to create effectiveness. On the other hand, there was also a handful of participants who just as strongly felt that too many of the “things we know” are no longer valid and that new ways of operating — with different assumptions about how hierarchies work — are necessary. At times these disagreements were rather heated. We didn’t come to blows, but still.

Here’s a table I drew for myself during the meeting that illustrates some of the differences:

Old Guard talked about New Guard talked about
“social change” “community impact”
“movements” “actions”
“issues” “conditions”
“alignment” “local ideas”
“what’s proven” “what’s possible”

What became very evident to me is how allergic the one worldview is to the other. In the meeting I found myself marveling at how the “old guard” bristled at the new ideas. But on reflection, I am equally interested in how cranky the new guard was too.

We are at a shifting point and there really are two ways of looking at institutional hierarchies. An equilibrium, at least for the time being, has to be established, and it will be very hard to do.

But it is something institutions will need to grapple with, because such organizations include both kinds of people among their decision-making structures.

I want to give two shouts out to a couple of colleagues in particular: I am grateful to Mike Wood at the United Way for inviting me, and I am astounded at the skill Dave Moore (of Collaborative Communications) showed in facilitating a challenging conversation.

Posted

in

by

Brad Rourke

Tags:

Comments

8 responses to “The Old Vs. The New Guard In The Citizen-Centric Era”

  1. bradrourke

    Allison, I agree wholeheartedly and I love your point about long (“expensive”) planning increasing risk and the chance for someone to become a scapegoat. I think the skunk works approach is the way to go. Another way to say this is to just start creating (encouraging) small changes in ad hoc ways; this will become full fledged pockets of change (as my friend Rich Harwood says) and from these you can start to see what sticks and build.

    It is a way of working that looks longer and more chaotic at the start, but that is more robust, resilient and agile once things get going.

  2. Allison Fine

    Hey, Brad, great post and great to finally (!) meet you in person! It was a fascinating meeting and from my perch firmly ensconced in the geek corner the divide was quite clear.

    Upon reflection I think that real sticking point between the two different points of view was focused on how to get started. I think once started it was pretty clear to everyone that an effort has to be very agile, constantly learning and improving, trying to engage more and more people. But whether you need a fully buttoned-down plan with the entire strategy outlined that will be expensive and time-consuming to create, or whether you can just get going and incorporate the doing into the ongoing planning seemed key to me. Based on the previous sentence and my position in the geek corner you can probably guess which one I voted for!

    Once the planning becomes long and expensive then the stakes go up and the risk goes up and the chances of someone taking a fall for the failure goes way, way up. I would prefer to see groups like United Ways begin to transition from a transactional lens to a relational one with their communities by testing out some ideas, inviting unusual suspects into conversations, listening, listening, listening to their communities and learning as they go. Just one geek’s opinion!

    Really great meeting you!

    Allison

  3. bradrourke

    Hey, Tom, thanks for the comment. I am looking forward to more interactions with you, too!

  4. Tom W.

    Brad – great post. I was thinking about this all the way back up to NY. The conversation really did break into two factions, as you say. It’s interesting that some of the “new” stuff on the table – social media and more open planning for older organizations – focused on the “the possible” rather than on a vast movement. Good stuff and I enjoyed both the crowd and meeting you.

  5. bradrourke

    Leo, I like those twin “pride” entries.

    Greg — yes, Dave is a prince of a person.

    Myshel — I would love to share that report with you! Gotta get it done first . . .

  6. Greg Hanna

    As a long time friend of Dave Moore, I can attest to his wonders in communicating. I quickly realized that he was the frat brother that I most wanted to emulate when I grew up. Unfortunately, the last time I saw him facilitating a discussion was close to 18 years ago in a college dorm room, but some of those issues/conditions were pretty contentious in their own rights (at least they were then).

  7. Leo Dewey

    Funny you should use the terms Old and New “Guard”. In my experience impasse at such meetings stems from just that: Factions guarding their own positions on a topic. Sometimes the atmosphere becomes so poisoned, one or both “Guards” waste all the time defending their wall rather than building bridges between them. You might have added an item to both columns “pride in accomplishment” on the one hand, “pride of authorship” on the other.

  8. Myshel Prasad

    You make me wish I was there! I love meaningful conversations that involve two compelling but seemingly irreconcilable narratives. It’s a personal fascination of mine. The conflict is sometimes based on the idea that any single story can be true (vrs effective, perhaps contingently so). If an organization is staking it’s time and money (and survival) on a direction or initiative, obviously they want to choose the “right” one, and certainly an individual who may be staking their life on a given story wants it to be right as well. It seems to me that when the stakes are high is when people become increasingly “fundamentalist” about their stories! And yet these are the times when flexibility and curiosity are the greatest assets. “Crisis” is potentially a good time to clear the current Baudrillardian map and look at the ground underneath… begin a new cartography… which it seems like you’re trying to do in your new work. I’d love to see your report when you’re through!

Leave a comment