Community and the Limits of Volunteerism

[Procyon]

Competence:

Competence is the thoroughness and accuracy in which one completes actions to a specific goal. It is the rigorousness to detail. It is the expectation that others will meet your standards and execute instructions as you designed them.

As suggested before, Competence has a synergy with Drive.A driving person with high competence and drive will construct elaborate systems, take time to design operations where everything has its point and it’s place.

Competence is Challenged by Diplomacy.

Because of the exacting standards, Diplomacy becomes the key to implementation.  If diplomacy is low, the ability to move others into using or accepting a system becomes difficult, effectivly impeding Competency of a system.  At the same time, if diplomacy is high,  competency of the entire system is more likely to succeed as people “buy into” the solution or operation you put forth and feel that they are contributing to more than just themselves.

The counter to Competency is Collaboration.   More will be described in Collaboration proper, but since Collaboration is about allowing/giving others time, tools, and power to implement common goals, it works counter to focus and implementing the systems designed by oneself.   It accepts the errors of others and, by nature, is tolerant and accepting of the input of others over the viewpoints of oneself. Like drive/diplomacy, they exist in a specific balance to each other.

Shadows:

A positive Shadow of Competence is too high a standard or too rigorous a system such that it becomes inapplicable. To be in a volunteer group is to work with others.  As noted in preamble, people are flawed and will think differently.  If you demand too much, you response to creating a system to other volunteers is “sink or swim”.   Positive shadow is actually very good for individuals and for profit companies, but tend to falter with larger social organizations because of the diffuse and more relaxed member base. Many early conventions start to falter after about year 3-7 because they do not handle the transition from initial founder base of a small handful of competent/driving personalities who ignored the need to train and create back fill (collaboration/diplomacy), assuming their support staff would “just get it”.  At same time, they also create systems “only they” can use or understand. Consequently,  any situation to cause them to not be with organization, either personal or accidental, creates havoc as system is unusable.   This  invariably undermines the utility of an over competent system.

[Cybergarou]

Proving you wrong was not my point. I’m not that self-serving. You are making an argument for HOW MNFurs can be a group of volunteers and as a premise you said a group is assumed. That IS circular reasoning. The point I was getting at is you have to show that there is a group, especially since some aspects of MNFurs is appearing to not be very group-like right now. You kind of need to explore how MNFurs can be a group before you can explore how MNFurs can be a group of volunteers.

I’m suggesting that the issues that prompted this discussion aren’t necessarily issues with how you are being volunteers, but rather issues with how you are a group.

Needless to say, I’m not getting much use out of this discussion. No fault of yours, I just had different expectations when it first popped up. I’m going to start a separate thread describing why I’m not volunteering anymore. I don’t know if it’s anything anyone cares about, or if anyone will get anything out of it, but I have long felt that many of the people I have known in MNFurs have shown a lack of respect for people who choose not to volunteer. And while most people have the courtesy to not bother me about stopping, some have said things that to me that were hurtful. I just want to be sure that people can respect my decision, so that when I come back asking for people who would like to help out with a convention I’m not outright ignored.

[Mouring]

@Procyon said:
The counter to Competency is Collaboration.   More will be described in Collaboration proper, but since Collaboration is about allowing/giving others time, tools, and power to implement common goals, it works counter to focus and implementing the systems designed by oneself.   It accepts the errors of others and, by nature, is tolerant and accepting of the input of others over the viewpoints of oneself. Like drive/diplomacy, they exist in a specific balance to each other.

I don’t believe that. If Collaboration is about allowing/giving others time, tools, and power to implement a common goal. And the counter to is is Competency, then Competency is about hording tools, time, and power. Which isn’t absolutely not the case. Competency is knowing how to effective use time, tools, and power.

So I’m sorry, but I’ll proclaim this to be bunk. =)

Drive is more of a counter to Collaboration then Competency. As people who are too driven tend to give up on “dragging others along” and just venture forth and do it themselves.

[Procyon]

@ℳøuring said:

@Procyon said:
The counter to Competency is Collaboration.   More will be described in Collaboration proper, but since Collaboration is about allowing/giving others time, tools, and power to implement common goals, it works counter to focus and implementing the systems designed by oneself.   It accepts the errors of others and, by nature, is tolerant and accepting of the input of others over the viewpoints of oneself. Like drive/diplomacy, they exist in a specific balance to each other.

I don’t believe that. If Collaboration is about allowing/giving others time, tools, and power to implement a common goal. And the counter to is is Competency, then Competency is about hording tools, time, and power. Which isn’t absolutely not the case. Competency is knowing how to effective use time, tools, and power.

So I’m sorry, but I’ll proclaim this to be bunk. =)

Drive is more of a counter to Collaboration then Competency. As people who are too driven tend to give up on “dragging others along” and just venture forth and do it themselves.

As I said at beginning,  more will be said in Collaboration proper.  Part of the issue of a “bunk” is due to a rushed definition.  Partly because I’m trying to merge 2 theories together that I believe are both right. Sadly,  one focuses on motivations and intentions, while the other on outcomes and consequences     Both have good track records, but also have gaps which the other theory addresses. This kinda leaves us with a mish-mash of terminologies and ideas when merging the 2 theories. Lemme try to clean up some language and give some better examples.  I did warn these would be “pushed out” and therefore more prone to flaw. 

[Procyon]

Sorry for delay.

Collaboration:

Collaboration is the dynamic of cooperation of effort.  It is a compromise of design. It is the necessity to teach and train.  It is allowing people to fail in order to learn.  Yet all of this must still maintain a structure of “a group” by creating systems that can use a wide variety of abilities, know ledges, and efforts.   It tries to find a place for any valid participation level. 

It is not interested in “inclusion” per see , that is realm of Diplomacy.  Collaboration is focused on outcomes, like Competency.  However, it measures successes by number of people involved during things that were new to them or group. It also can be measured by number of individuals developing skills and gaining insights.   Sometimes, it is about getting outsides ones comfort zone, yet still yielding empirically “good” experiences.

To Mouring: When talking about the counter to Competency, you took a straight logical definitions of Competency, Collaboration and what it means to counter.   The terms Competency and Collaboration are terms I grabbed to best envision the dynamics involved.  A better way to look at how these two “counter” each other is focusing on the nature of the outcomes. This is why I like using Jungian shadow theory is it avoids rights and wrongs, but is more focused in “are we too much of one and not enough of the other”

A overly Competent, positive shadow individual will not end up intentionally hoarding tools and abilities, but they will effectively do the same.  They are intolerant of other peoples mistakes and not meeting the same standards as them.  They will create systems that are internally very consistent, but have very limited application when applied to others (because of the perspective of others peoples “flawed” nature) or require constant maintenance that adjust for these that only they can do.  This, in turn, ends up limiting the utility of the system to the Collaboration dynamic as Collaboration is about assuming the role of training and teaching.

Many conventions run into the issue as well.

The failure of a Convention is RARELY about the creation a con (or any large event really), that is determined by the Drive and Competency of only a small number of individuals usually.  We have seen this dozens of times before.  However, this becomes the failing.  The inability or lack of interest  to include dynamics of Collaboration or Diplomacy stagnate these conventions.  They seem great for maybe a year or 2, but then they tend to falter.  This is usually because the transitions caused when people retire, burn out, or otherwise leave becomes very awkward and clunky.  Everything is then a cycle of emergency or a complete reinvention as the con is all but having to be rebuilt from scratch every year, with the volunteers internal to specific areas feeling that everyone else at the convention is “doing it wrong”.  

Obviously, some conventions handle this better than others. But usually because of the luck or foresight of some individuals to be there in key positions to be able to create a back fill of talent and ability. I find such a dependence on luck dangerous and financially irresponsible when you may be talking about thousands of dollars.

My hope is these example show the interrelation of Competency and Collaboration.

[Procyon]

Last one:

Diplomacy

Diplomacy is the motivational dynamics of a group or team.  At it’s core: “GO TEAM!!” Slightly more, it is the operation of promotion and support.  Promotion by not only highlighting people and making sure they can expand to their abilities, but also forcing quieter, less confident people into roles they may be able to accomplish if impressed upon them that they can. This is also integrated with support, which is making sure there is due diligence and that their actions do not stifle or harm the motivational factors of others. 

It could be argued this the hardest to get right, not because of the singular skill of putting others motivations before yourself, but more the fact it attempts to balance everyone’s motivations at once.  An observation in the preamble about differing ideologies of individuals would suggest this as an impossible goal.  However, as also suggested before, this is not circular reasoning or hypocrisy.  This is an operational paradox of how people organize, setting aside differences to accomplish a common goal. This dynamic has the least to do with productive output.  It is measured by “buy in” of and ephemeral ideal that, unlike Drive, is not solely based in core motivations of the individual. This is why this is a harder skill to balance than others. 

As noted before Diplomacy has a synergy with Collaboration.  I want to note a very interesting volunteer created with these 2.  There has been several volunteers I have worked with before who have these high but a low competency and or drive.   These people can have bad judgement, even bad abilities in themselves, but are excellent people for performing specific tasks or being general “helpers” who become the responsibility of a driven/competent individual.  You almost never give them a department or decision making roles, but they are AWESOME at support and execution as long as the “driver” knows how to use them.

Diplomacy is challenged with competency.   Diplomacy is quite literally measured by this tension. There is nothing harder than  to have frame of mind and context to show that a singular, very competent person who insist on “my way of the highway” is more damaging to a group that an army of “just okay” volunteers.    This is never more true than with conventions.  My example will be Uncle Kage. 

There is much this individual has done in making Anthrocon and even other cons come to light.  I do not question the good here.  However, ask anybody who has work with him, he can be difficult to work for as he is not big on please and thank yous and most people can not surpass his expectations, just fail to meet them. Sadly, Anthrocon has a horrible staff turnaround as people feel worthless or invalidated for, from an outside perspective, reasonably good/okay efforts and results. As time marches on, Anthrocon is moving forward not due to resounding successes in its operations, but an inertia and status of some key staff and being the “big one” or the “first” in many peoples eyes.  Sadly, experience has shown, as with any great institutions, this level of loyalty or novelty will likely go away and get superseded by others.    If you need a greater example, look up at history of Conifur.  This was one of the original great fur cons. It is now dead, sadly.    It had many of the same issues.

That being said, when Diplomacy and Competency DO work right, almost anything reasonable should be able to be accomplished. This is the mark of a great leader.

With hat said, hopefully we can appreciate why Drive is the counter to Diplomacy.  To balance things, you really need to absolve yourself of your personal goals and ambitions.  If a group is moving to a position  “X”, and you do not like/want “X”, you need to make an assessment.  Is this my “against X”, or is this a general “X is a bad idea”. One needs to be able to adequately articulate why this may not be a good idea that DOES NOT include a set of personal interests or beliefs.  

[Author]

Posts