| Once
you have a powerful, unifying vision or purpose, you need to be concerned about how to
select goals to implement that vision. A special challenge here is setting goals which
motivate your membership towards achievable purpose. When all-volunteer group goals are
not owned by members, widely and deeply, who else will achieve them? A small core of
over-worked faithful-in the process of burning out? And what then to fall back on? Not
staff; there is no staff. Not money; there usually isn't much of that. What is needed is
far more than 'ownership" of goals by members. We're talking of ensuring do-ability
by volunteers. Here's an example from when I worked
with a mainly volunteer neighborhood association. One day Bob (I'll call him) showed me
six goals the neighborhood organization had set last year. I asked him how we did and he
said: "pretty well; we achieved three of the six goals." I congratulated him and
then suggested we should talk about the three goals we failed to achieve. "What three
goals?" said Bob. 'Wait a minute," said I "You can't ignore missed goals if
you want to do better next year.' "No," said Bob, 'we didn't fail to achieve
anything because, in a volunteer group like ours, what volunteers won't do can't be a
goal!" A little tricky, perhaps, but a solid point underneath. In an all-volunteer
group, what volunteers won't do, ultimately won't get done. The program is the product of
the people. Therefore, set goals in the first place on the basis of what volunteers are
willing to do. More than just "willing"; if possible, glad to do.
A lot of us could take lessons from Bob because there is a
tendency to concentrate more on the ideal than the do-able in setting goals; more on what
the heart would like to see than what the hands can do. Such fantasies are fed by
forgetting that in fact we do not have staff. Thus, unchecked idealism generates
unrealistically high goals which sets us up for failure, demoralization, and frustration.
Eventually, we begin to expect failure in an all-volunteer group and, at that point,
almost always get it. Such concerns led to the development and field-testing of the
following 'Membership Input Process." This process is designed to:
* convert passive membership to active participation;
* promote ownership of the organizations programs by its
members;
* avoid over-extending the organization, to the point where
it effectively accomplishes nothing; and
* prevent people from "dumping" goals on the
organization while doing nothing to help accomplish those goals.
The process provides a structured way for a group to elicit
input from as many members as possible, followed by collating and synthesizing the ideas
by a "Goal Review Committee," and then final adoption of the goals by the full
membership.
Preparing for the Process
The first question is: "Whom shall we include in the process?" The answer is:
everyone ... at least everyone who might by any stretch of the imagination be relevant to
achieving your mission. The contrast is "top-down" goal setting by a few (the
board or executive committee, for example). What we want is the enfranchising of every
stake-holder "from the ground up."
The annual planning or kickoff meeting is a good time to
run the process. A large number of members can be expected to attend, and the process
works best in person. However, participation by mail can also be offered to absentee
members in good standing who have valid reasons for not attending the meeting.
Safeguards in the process itself will work to eliminate the
input of people who really don't care about the group and might not even understand it.
Therefore, it's safe as well as desirable to be inclusive. This might mean inviting at
least a few former members you'd like to see get involved again, and some potential
members who have never yet been involved. This process has definite potential for
recruiting new members.
Finally, some groups try to include major supporters even
when they are not members or ever likely to be, such as donors of money or materials.
Once you've decided on who to include as participants,
explain the sequence of steps they will follow to complete the Membership Input Process
(see next section). Preface the process with clear orientation or re-orientation on four
points:
1. A clear reminder of and, as needed, further discussion
of overall group mission. Examples are: "this association aims to promote quality of
life for residents of the Elm Street neighborhood," or "our purpose is public
education on the AIDS epidemic," or "we want to help one another gain even more
enjoyment from flower gardening."
2. A reminder on a timeframe in which goals should be
achievable. Typically, but not always, this would be about a year. Whatever, be crystal
clear on timespan to deter disasters of people suggesting five-year projects for one-year
timeframes.
3. Usually a reminder on the desolate state of the treasury
will be in order. Therefore, even moderately expensive goals must be accompanied by
suggestions for feasible fundraising strategies (see Chapter 6).
4. Encourage each member to give input independently as an
individual. Some 'lobbying" of other members is usually permissible later in the
process, and will probably happen anyhow.
There are some grassroots organizations in which people are
not comfortable in putting anything in writing. If this is the case in your group,
complete the process orally, perhaps with someone recording things said on a blackboard or
taking good notes on a legal pad.
Outline of the Process
Here are the instructions for the Membership Input Process. The exercise can first be done
by each participant individually or can be completed through group discussion.
STEP 1:
What are the three top subjects, projects, or goals on which our group should be working
over the next year (or 18 months, or?)? Be as specific as you can.
STEP 2:
For each goal, list at least three do-able steps to implement achievement of the goal.
These must be things which are realistically within the capabilities of our organization.
No suggestion will be considered unless accompanied by at least three (four? five?)
do-able steps, plus your promise to participate personally in implementing at least one of
these steps (see the next instruction).
STEP 3:
Put a check mark next to any do-able step in which you are personally willing to invest
significant amounts of time and effort. These are sometimes called "participation
promises.'
Note: The participation promise requirement might be eased
for members with long and loyal histories of contribution to the group. However, balance
this consideration with concern not to appear too biased towards insiders, or good 'ol
boys or girls. Getting away from that is the main object of the exercise here.
Once Steps 1 to 3 are completed with all the participants,
you are ready for:
STEP 4:
Form a Goal Review Committee to correlate and analyze the goal suggestions of all
participants, and to develop a set of recommendations to be brought back to the group as a
whole for adoption.
To get a feel for how this exercise works, look at the
example on the next page for Cynthia Brown, a member of a solar power advocacy group. She
has completed the process for a one-year timeframe.
MEMBERSHIP INPUT PROCESS
Organization: Solar Power Advocacy Group
Member's Name: CYNTHIA BROWN
Here are three projects I think our group should work on
this year:
1. Educational Campaign in local Junior and Senior High
Schools
Do-able Steps:
Secure support of superintendent of schools and principals of target schools.
Design curriculum. Select content, develop teaching aids, etc.
«
Recruit and train presenters,
2. Present a "Solar Fair" next year in
conjunction with the annual County Fair
Do-able Steps:
« Gain
support of County Fair Board,
3. Research what other communities have done and adapt this
to our situation.
Prepare back-up plan in case it rains the day of the Fair.
Try to interest 4-H or other youth groups in taking on the project.
Demonstration project to teach neighborhood people how to build their own low-cost solar
collectors
Do-able Steps:
Select target neighborhood
«Purchase,
or get donated, materials sufficient to make 50 low-cost solar collectors.
Develop a simple and slide show on how to
build your own low-cost solar collector.
« Recruit
and train a corps of trainers to present workshops in the target neighborhood.
Select accessible neighborhood sites for the workshops
Additions to Consider
The Membership Input Process is simply one form of guidance towards realistic decisions on
group goals. It may do that satisfactorily in its present rough form, or you may decide to
get more detailed input. Two additional considerations are time available and something
that might be called strength of motivation.
Ask participants to put in parentheses by their 'participation
promise" check, how much time each expects to be able to contribute in the task area
checked. Be clear on what the numbers mean. Hours or person-days? Per week? Per month?
Over the entire project?
Also useful, if you want to go to the trouble, is the person's
estimate of total time the task would take. Thus, from Cynthia in the illustration: (5/20)
Gain support of County Fair Board would mean she 'pledges" five hours to this task,
but estimates it might take twenty hours in all.
Here as generally, it's well to reassure people that their
participation promise check does not mean they're expected to do it all alone. Others will
almost certainly be involved, too, if the project/goal is adopted by the group. An
individual's time available estimate should also be understood in terms of his/her
involvement elsewhere in the group's activities. Viewed in the context of significant
involvement elsewhere, a relatively low time available estimate is more acceptable, or at
least understandable. Heavy involvement elsewhere, however, maybe a danger signal that the
person is already over-committed.
As for strength of motivation, it does make a difference if the task
the individual promises to take on is something s/he enjoys doing and is good at. If
Cynthia happens to like advocacy with groups such as the County Fair Board, and is pretty
good at it, the chances are much better that she will come through successfully on this
task. Obviously, participation promises backed by enjoyment of the task are to be
preferred over those backed by grimly obliged mediocrity. In a small or medium-size group,
this is something you might know about individuals. Otherwise, it is something that should
be looked at later in the goal review process, and certainly before it is completed.
The Goal Review Committee
Form a Goal Review Committee to correlate what could be a mass of individual input. After
all, if we have 50 members averaging three goal-suggestions each, we would have 150
packages of goal input to process.
If your group happens to be cliquish, and this committee represents
only the cliques, the entire process is eviscerated. Be sure instead to have a solid
presence of 'new kids on the block" and other folks outside the in-group.
Goals are reviewed and recommendations made for selection based on
at least six criteria:
1. The goal suggestion is within our overall mission area.
(Cynthia's suggestion of a solar-power educational program in the schools is just fine,
but probably not for a Parents Without Partners group.)
2. The goal is clearly stated and internally consistent where
possible. The Review Committee can get back to any member whose suggestion is ambiguous or
internally inconsistent. For example, 'raise more money by increasing our membership and
raising our membership fees" has the potential inconsistency that raising fees might
put membership out of the financial reach of many people, therefore decreasing membership
and lowering total revenue.
3. The goal, or a similar one, has been suggested independently by a
significant number of other members (consensus). Be alert for goals suggestions that are
similar enough to be combined in some way. For example, Cynthia Brown suggests securing
the support of 'superintendents and principals." If another member suggested getting
the support of 'science department heads,' the two ideas could easily be blended.
4. Collectively, from all members suggesting the project/goal, there
are sufficient realistic steps to achieve the goal, including sufficient resources.
5. Collectively, there is substantial (not necessarily perfect)
coverage of do-able steps by participation promise checks.
6. These participation promises are credible in terms of both time
available and quality of motivation.
The object is to get all or virtually all steps covered by
participation promise checks which: have credible amounts of available time behind them;
reflect, insofar as possible, some enthusiasm for the task beyond mere willingness or
guilt; and have some back-up or redundancy in the system. In case one person doesn't come
through on her or his piece of the action, we have other participation promises for each
task.
The review process is rational and committed to genuine
participative involvement of members in the guidance of the group. But no one said it was
easy or entirely 'objective." How, for example, do you weigh a project which is
strong on consensus but relatively weak on do-ability, against a goal which is stronger on
do-ability than on consensus? And what if you come out with several projects/goals which
clearly meet all the criteria, but entirely leave out several key members/stakeholders? To
what extent do you water down the criteria to ensure involvement of the left-outs?
Finally, the method's orientation towards consensus and do-ability
must not be allowed to snuff out creativity. In the early stages, creative ideas are often
held by loners. If the goal review process eliminates these seemingly wild,
group-stretching ideas this year, they must at least be recommended for discussion as
goals next year. Indeed the goal review committee's recommended goals for adoption should
be accompanied by another set of recommended goals for serious discussion in the future.
As the last step of the process, the recommendations of the
committee are presented to the membership-at-large for final decision making.
Do-ability or Stretching
Do-ability versus stretching of capacity is a fundamental issue in goal setting which
divided even the greatest community organizers of this century. Saul Alinsky, for example,
held that groups needed a string of assured victories, however small, while Myles Horton
is of the growth-through-stretching school of goal setting.
Maybe both approaches have their place. I can visualize a productive
mix of several do-ables and one group-extending goal in the set of annual targets for an
all-volunteer group. On the other hand, the optimum pattern may be sequential, as with the
strategies of some college athletic teams. You schedule a few "sure thing"
warm-up games at the beginning of the year (the goal being to win, of course) and hope
this builds confidence for tackling tougher assignments for the rest of the season.
In all this let us remember do-able is not
necessarily trivial. Achievable goals can be extraordinarily important, as is demonstrated
daily by all-volunteer groups from neighbors organizing to deliver hot meals to people
homebound with AIDS, to an Ecuadorian community organization teaching street children to
read. |
