Last week we discussed the concept of shunning, and how, as a community we often rely on it as our method of discipline. We also discussed the flaws of such an approach, and the underlying causes of why this approach was originally adopted, and why it continues to be used. The underlying causes are primarily down to the nature of internet forums, but also the foundations of the Jedi community; as they primarily came to exist from 1995 onwards. It is hard to deny the direct impact the internet had on the Jedi community existing. The underlying issues being based around unfair power relationships, and the fact that many early leaders were simply not fit for the role and have left in their wake the very same unfair power structures. However, it is easy to criticise and discuss the problems; it is not always easy to come up with solutions. This week, I want to look at some strategies that could be employed to deal with issues discusses last week.
1. Mentoring
The Apprentice/Master model is not what I am talking about here. Rather, I am talking about mentorship in broader terms. In 2004, David Clutterbuck created an acronym for what mentors do:
- Manage the relationship
- Encourage
- Nurture
- Teach
- Offer mutual respect
- Respond to the learner's needs
In the context of an organisation, mentoring relationships are often entered with a clearly defined goal. A time-frame, what the responsibilities of the parties involved are, and how regular meetings will be and for how long, are usual aspects of the frame work. For the learner, or mentee, the benefits are obvious; they benefit from their mentor’s focus and expertise and can explore their learning under the guidance of another. More importantly though, learning and development can be one of the first things we begin to neglect when we become busy or distracted. A mentoring relationship can help prevent personal development falling to the way side.
Where does this fit into Jedi organisations? The Apprentice/Master model has already been mentioned, but who is mentoring the mentors? Teaching is a difficult role, and the role of the Jedi Master is one that is complex and has many facets: learning consultant, coach, counsellor, advisor, role model, and critical friend. The prior are all the many hats a Jedi may have to wear when teaching an apprentice. In most Jedi organisations, sadly, once one reaches the role of Knight one is left to fend for one self. Knights are expected to become teachers and mentors, based on their own experiences of mentorship, but I would argue this is not wise.
The tradition of the Apprentice/Master has in it’s past as many poor mentors as it has had brilliant mentors. This means that the tradition alone is a mixed bag of good and bad mentoring practices. Similarly, if a person is left to teach, and given only the broad context of the tests and trials their student will need to pass it can be difficult for them to truly educate their student. Furthermore, it is not the role of teacher that is alone in having important responsibilities and struggles in the Jedi community. There are many roles and responsibilities that need to be filled in any organisation.
Thus, what am I suggesting? A robust structure of mentoring, but also models designed to grow people into a role. Let us consider some basic ways to apply this:
1. A knight wishes to take an apprentice. Have them work as an assistant to someone who is working with an apprentice, and over a fixed time have them take an increasing role in teaching the apprentice, while having the oversight and support of the primary tutor. This will allow the individual to experience teaching, while having direct support, and if they struggle it will not dramatically affect the apprentice.
2. Have a mentoring overseer, or several, for those engaged in responsibilities for the organisation. Ensure weekly meetings are being held to ensure everyone is getting the correct support. Such meetings will help detect potential issues and will also maintain a focus on personal development through out the organisation.
3. Mentoring is not about rank, but about the needs of individuals: if someone has volunteered for a new role, ensure they are receiving oversight and mentoring from someone who knows the role. Have someone who will help them grow into the role.
With all the above said, mentoring relationships are not for everyone, however, some structured oversight is still important. Take 2 from above for example; you should still have people attending a regular one-to-one so that you know their ambitions for their role but can help foresee issues. It need not be a mentoring meeting, but it’s important to create opportunities for people to talk. As stated last week, the key to all of this is communication. Mentoring is just one key tool in the tool bag.
2. Disassemble Unfair power relationships
An issue we discussed last week was that in the online realm, the creation of Jedi sites was often done by those with the will to do so rather than those who were most suited to do so. Similarly; that rank and administrative power have been intimately entwined ever since. The problem with this is that it creates unfair power relationships; the highest authority is beholden to no one because they have all the power. The forums, websites, and online homes belong to the creator, not the community. As such; how do we resolve these issues:
1. Invest executive power in a team, not an individual or a pair of individuals. If one operates a traditional council; have power invested in the council. Also, make part of every leadership role the responsibility of finding one’s successor; make sure the leadership is always looking to the future, and have in place the means to pass on responsibilities.
2. Define roles clearly and without ambiguity. If there is an intended chain of command, make it implicit in the role structure. Similarly, clarify clearly what authority, and responsibilities, every role has. No one should be left uncertain of their membership expectations. This will help prevent such things as “pulling rank” but also situations where a person may feel their hands are tied due to being outranked; the integral issue which undermines transparent communications in a hierarchy.
3. Define rules clearly and without ambiguity. The rules of conduct should be informed by your organisation’s doctrine, ethical guidelines, and stated values but one should keep in mind that a forum is a distinct space. Clarify your rules for various contexts, and whether some spaces have different rules from others. Also, ensure everyone is subject to them and the rules are enforced consistently. There should be no exceptions to the rules. This ensures everyone is on a level playing field when it comes to conduct.
4. Have an anonymous complaint model; allow members the ability to issue complaints against others in a safe manner. Similarly; have a clear set of measures in place for when complaints occur. Does it require someone being suspended from their role (please do not read as temporary banning) while the issues are investigated for example. What is the responsibility of the organisation if the concern is potentially criminal? Make the process consistent with the rules.
5. All key roles should be shadowed and have an official assistant role. In the event some one in a key role must exit or leave the role, there is an interim officer immediately ready to take over the role. This helps split work loads between two volunteers rather that playing the onus on one and ensures a continuity of administration in the event one of them leaves or is dismissed from the role. It also prevents key responsibilities being monopolised, and held to ransom, by one person.
3. Fitness for role Policies
Returning to a key point earlier that it was the people with the will to create sites, and teachings, that ended up well known rather than those with the ability to be good leaders that ended up in places of power. Similarly, however, ranks are often awarded and retained despite changes in training programs, and the changing of expectations about what a rank means. However, in no other context would we be happy for someone to not stay consistent with the expectations of their role. We would not accept a surgeon who has been retired for five years and has not attended a single medical conference in his retirement, to perform surgery on us in a cutting-edge theatre. He would be out of practice, and out of his depth, because the setting would be unfamiliar to him. We would not take Judo lessons from someone who has not trained in twenty years, even if they were a fifth dan when they stopped training. He would not have the physical ability any more to be effective in demonstrating the techniques.
Ultimately, this all comes down to skill fade, and it effects all skill sets. Six months without practice can have a debilitating effect; to the point one might as well effectively start again from the beginning. However, how does this effect Jedi organisations? How often do we as organisations run requalification courses, or skill sessions? I would be tempted to suggest that most reading this have never even considered this a factor in being a Jedi. Yet; as Jedi we have roles which have important skills. Teaching, mentorship, and mediation are all skills we must practice online before we even consider our offline existence. As organisations we have several options available to us to maintain fitness for role:
1. Requalification in key online training modules every year or every other year. There are many skills that are taught online and can be demonstrated online. We can ensure our members in key roles are maintaining the essential skills and are kept aware of changes to training material and procedures.
2. Defined dead-lines as to when training modules expire. This enforces the acknowledgement of skill fade but gives guidance on best practice regarding staying on top of the game. How often should one be requalifying and undergoing key training.
3. Acknowledge and credit significant and relevant third-party achievements. Degrees for example probably exceed the current training any Jedi community provides. By acknowledging individual’s existing qualifications, and contributions, we can better locate people where they will be most effective and of most use. Similarly, we can identify the training they need rather than direct them to training that is redundant for them.
4. Give time guidance for the time a person is expected to put into a role; be it a mentor, or some other form of administrative officer. How many hours are you realistically expecting people to put into their roles, and responsibilities? A common guideline for many volunteer organisations is sixty hours, with twenty of those being committed to the primary goal of the organisation. That is just under and hour and ten minutes a week. If one is operating as a mentor in an apprentice/master relationship; asking that someone in that role spends at least that much time a week on their apprentice is not at all unrealistic.
5. Divorce rank from responsibilities where possible, and instead focus on qualifications. Responsibilities should be connected to the fitness for role policy, however, rank should not be taken away simply for a lapse in a qualification. If someone has allowed their mentoring qualifications to lapse, they simply will not be allowed to mentor until they get the qualifications back. They should not lose their rank of Knight or Master.
The key thing is ensuring people with responsibility are trained, are maintaining their training, and are supported in maintaining their training. Similarly, that they are not punished for a lapse; life happens. Making people step back is not a punishment but making sure they are not vulnerable to liability.
4. Rehabilitation rather than punishment
Discussed last week with the issue of shunning. I will quickly reiterate the key part of last week that applies to this discussion:
1. Temporary bans have characterised what is considered the softer approach, and permanent bans as the hardest punishment. However, temporary bans often lead to the person never returning, and they do not fulfil their objective: How can a person grow into a contributing member, or have the support to find solutions to their problems if they are isolated from the community?
2. Punitive measures have often involved the notion of “humility”. A person loses their rank until they demonstrate they are worthy of it again, or they must undergo some form of training to “save” their rank. This carrot and stick approach, however, makes the rank important rather than actual change, learning, and growth important.
How do we resolve these two issues?
1. Do away with temporary bans and employ only permanent ones. If someone warrants exclusion they have demonstrated an inability to learn and become a constructive part of the community. Temporary exclusion will not resolve this; rather, problematic actions are the symptom of a problematic environment. If an individual’s behaviours are “problematic” they should not be isolated, but rather given mentorship, and invited to discuss problems with their peers. They can only grow into a contributing member, by being given the opportunity. If this is not a solution make all bans permanent but have an appeal process; if someone wants to return and put the effort in, they will pass an appeal.
2. Mediation should be done properly. If the conflict is between an authority figure and a member who has no role, then the authority figure cannot be left to solve the problem. It is an unfair power balance; the leadership should organise a resolution and appoint a mediator. It takes two to tango, and though their may be an aggressor and victim, that will become clear with investigation. Assume equal responsibility until it is evident that is not the case. Similarly, advise they take measures to avoid each other if the problem between them cannot be resolved, and it’s simply a matter of clashing personalities. This is not a perfect solution, and to be fair if it is a person in a key role; that person should not be in a key role if there is valued membership that refuse to work with them. End of the day; all roles are voluntary but should be approached with a professional mindset. The rule of thumb though is mediation and communication, over investigation and punishment.
3. Suspend from responsibilities, not from the community. When a person in a key role is under investigation, suspend them from duties, however do not exclude them from the community. Instead, treat as innocent until proven guilty. Now, there may be exceptions to this, such as potential criminality in which case a permanent ban is in order, and a report to the appropriate authorities. However, general rule of thumb is to remove the pressures of the job and allow things to be resolved. Resolving issues for the health and welfare of the members involved comes before any jobs and responsibilities to the organisation.
4. Ban everyone involved if they have any culpability in creating the problem environment. Unless it is clearly a case of a bully attacking someone, and that person has done nothing to retaliate except report the incident, then all the parties involved are propagating the issue. Do not find the “main” culprit and ban them; ban them all. Banning one person leaves the situation unresolved, because the problem characters remain. Now, this should be taken with a pinch of salt, and all cases should be investigated on their own virtue. Someone might have some mitigating circumstances, in which case they should be allowed to remain but placed under mentorship and helped to accommodate for problems. However, the key thing is this; do not solve the problem half way. If a group of people are the problem; get rid of them all.
5. Challenge Bad Leadership
It is the responsibility of any member of an organisation to challenge poor leadership habits. Below I have outlined several poor leadership habits that we, as a community, need to be able to challenge:
1. Blame problems on their predecessor and/or others:
A poor leader blames their predecessor or others for problems. They may claim that the predecessor has left the situation in such dire straits, it will take time to get everything in order, and of course they cannot possibly work on achieving any real change just yet. Similarly, they may blame those that they are responsible for leading for the problems; citing incompetency and so on. They blame the weakest colleague; thus, the organization first needs to find someone new before they can be expected to achieve the desired goals.
Similarly, a poor leader will always have engineered excuses at their disposal. For example, that the reports or statements of others are inaccurate or do not have the whole picture, and that their own information is the factual version. Lastly, they blame factors that they rightfully have no control over, but the impetus is that everything was going against them and therefore it was just impossible to get anything done, rather than focusing on a solution-based approach or showing any self-awareness about what they could have done differently under the circumstances.
2. Consistently busy.
A poor leader finds ways to make themselves appear busy. They involved themselves in projects they argue are integral to the organisation and are important enough that they cannot dedicate their time to regular tasks. The importance of these projects is moot, rather it is the failure to prioritise and fulfil their key jobs but masking the issue by making themselves appear productive. It can be a failure for the leader to prioritise, but it can as likely be a smoke screen for incompetency.
3. Goals based on avoiding failure, rather than pursuing growth.
A poor leader sets goals that cannot possibly be missed, as the organisation is largely fulfilling the goal as it stands. This means they appear successful in consistently meeting goals, however, it prevents the organisation from growing or developing because it is not investing in progressing or chasing goals. It hides a failure to grow behind a doctored appearance of continued successes.
4. Lead from a distance
Poor leaders rely on numbers, algorithms, and other technologies to gain insights into performance. Though these technologies are useful, poor leaders use them to practice off-hand leadership. It allows them to avoid interaction with those they technically lead, and indeed, when problems arise they have the excuse that they were not aware of the problems; especially if they are interpersonal and do not show up in the algorithms they use.
5. Lengthy interesting but unfeasible plans
Poor Leaders excel in presenting expansive, verbose, and ambitious plans. However, buried in such plans are the reality that they are based on assumptions. This can be from blatant incompetency; the poor leader does not realise they have based their plans on unmet preconditions. However, it can pre-planned as such an approach can serve to guard against criticism if these assumptions are presented as preconditions, that must be met to achieve goals. These plans can also confuse peers, and appear comprehensive, but enforce the notion that the poor leader is the only one that can implement them.
6. Communicate in only one manner
The poor leader will feign interest in thoughts and interests, complaints and input of others. Often, they will hold open forums, and appear to be open to other thoughts. However, in practice they consistently hold their own council, and stick to their own plans. Instead, bad managers stick to their own plans. If people complain, often a poor leader will use open forums as opportunities to critique others, and poor leaders will often try to normalise their own incompetency by citing the errors and mistakes of others.
7. Machiavellianism
Poor leaders practice Machiavellianism; they look to use "divide and conquer" strategies, and actively try to manipulate colleagues, peers, and others. This results in paranoia against the poor leader, but also an environment on where people are wary and on guard against such methods, rather than focused on the betterment of the organisation,
8. Have an exit strategy
A poor leader always has an exit strategy; somewhere else they could go, or something else they could focus their energies on. Their mind is always on the next thing, never on their current organisation. They are unwilling to accept responsibility for their mistakes, and errors, and instead always have a plan of escape for when situations turn against them.
Conclusion
I hope there are three core lessons here:
1. Communication is key: problems can only be solved by addressing them, in the same way that if you want answers you have to ask questions.
2. Support your members constantly: everyone, no matter where they are in life, can benefit from having someone to talk to on a regular basis. Similarly, make sure people have the training you want them to be able to employ. Do not ask of your members skills and abilities you have not trained them to use.
3. Do not take half measures when it comes to resolving inter-personal issues. Compromises between the aggrieved parties is fine; a compromise on your general solution is not. Removing a bully is acceptable; removing one antagonist when there are multiple antagonists is not. Justice must be balanced by mercy but tending to our community requires we be willing to take the measures needed.
These are just my ideas for helping with problems in our community. They are guidelines I try to operate by, however, I would like people to discuss and debate these contents. Offer their thoughts about other potential solutions, or perhaps how they would adjust solutions I have suggested. I would like this to become the start of a community project to look at our approaches to leadership, and discipline and maintaining order in our own house.