ira_gladkova (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ira_gladkova) wrote2012-07-18 06:07 pm
ira_gladkova) wrote2012-07-18 06:07 pm
Adding Board Seats, Elections (in the future), and Sudden Flood of Burnout Thoughts
Heyyy so there was a pretty big announcement: the OTW Board will be expanded to 9 people and the bylaws amended. In case it is not immediately obvious from the length: yes, I had my hands all over this post, with a base outline provided by excellent Elections Officer jennyst and revisions and input from Board, the Elections Workgroup, and Comms. (I also did the graphics; it was a nightmare.)
So there's a lot going on here. I was Elections Officer last term, so I have a pretty keen interest in elections goings-on. I never really posted about my election works much: near the start of elections, I went on leave for a family illness, during elections it was necessary for me to remain neutral (which was simplest by staying quiet), and afterwards, I was, frankly, too exhausted and demoralized. Until recently, I was also too sick. Basically I have a backlog of electionsfeels thoughts.
The things I want to cover include:
But then I realized this would be very tl;dr. I do know I have a problem. So I'm saving the last three items for later; today is going to be all about:
Just to be clear from the start, the idea of adding Board seats does not spring solely from a need to fix the elections issue. (This is another reason I want to cover the more electiony stuff separately: it is a separate issue.) As the OTW news post linked above demonstrates, it certainly helps. But the Board does honestly struggle with workload in ways that would be ameliorated by being able to spread the work around a little. Our committees are growing; the number of committees is growing; the number, reach, and scope of our projects are growing — and that's all awesome, but it's also simply too much for seven people to cover.
However! Not all of the workload stems from this. A large part of Board's problem is that we are currently still too involved in micromanagement and/or management on a level that causes conflicts of interest. As an example, when some kind of staffing or work gap appears (say, due to a sudden retirement), we often feel like we have to be the ones to step up, either first or as backup. And in the case of filling chair positions, I think it also creates conflicts of interest. We do not do this to hog positions or work, but because we often feel like there is no one else — we are some of the most experienced people in the org with a wide range of skills. But this also gives short shrift to everyone else in the org and robs people of opportunities to grow.
There's not really a simple answer like "well Board should just stop filling these gaps themselves". A lot of the time these positions are pretty key and there is work that needs to be done urgently: we don't have time to wait for someone to train up or to recruit someone. The real issue here is a lack of personnel management and succession planning, not just for chairs — something we've been keenly aware of this year — but for key positions at every level. If we were consistently training people up and had a framework in place whereby anyone doing load-bearing work had an understudy, we wouldn't be having this problem. But one huge obstacle is thatthe org is collectively often too busy doing its project-based work to also do its people-based work (ETA 01): we're too busy building our projects to also build the builders. And I think that's a real loss and a true tragedy in terms of the org culture. Given the way things are, I'm not sure there is a solution besides just slowing down on projects for a while in order to build up our people. That's a hard thing to accept, both for us and, I think, for our audience: why should the users and beneficiaries of our various projects have to wait because we can't manage to keep our house in order? However, I am, have been, and am increasingly of the opinion that this is what we will have to do.
[ETA 01]: After readingbookshop's comment, I think this (from my response to her) would be a more precise and accurate statement: The org is collectively more concerned with producing popular and/or acceptable output (often in the form of projects) than with doing the personnel support and management necessary to make that work happen in a healthy way. Apologies for the suboptimal initial wording! [/ETA]
And it's not fair. I know it's not fair. It's not fair to our staff and volunteers, who do this work because they love it and believe in it. It's not fair to our audience, who have to wait on things that matter to them. It's not fair because in the end, we collectively screwed up and now everyone, whether part of the problem or not, has to pay for it. We made a collection of mistakes that put us in this position. There is no one person or group of people to blame; the issue is too endemic.
But the status quo, letting it continue— I think that would be even more unfair. It undermines our work. It undermines our people. People leave the org feeling sick and used. Even if people simply leave feeling tired and nothing more, their legacy is tarnished by our poor ability to preserve it: the work they left suffers from the lack of structure, because the people left to continue it don't have enough support, in one way or another, to do the work proud.
Our Volunteers & Recruiting committee does not have the resources right now to handle a huge influx of people at any level, from volunteers to high-up staff, though I know they are working their asses off to strengthen the personnel management aspects of the org (readrenay's posts; she is Volcom chair and does mind-boggling amounts of work). But even if Volcom could handle an influx, the rest of the org, for the most part, still can't: almost everyone is already overwhelmed by project-based work, way too much to do the mentoring and nurturing necessary to handle incoming volunteers. This is one huge reason behind the endemic burnout: there's no one there to catch you.
We cannot afford to keep growing our projects without growing our people.
So what does this have to do with increasing the number of Board seats? I mean, reducing Board workload is nice, but — given everything else — so what?
I think an increase in Board seats has to be part and parcel of a movement to decrease Board micromanagement and increase Board's role in (temporarily) slowing down project growth while focusing instead of growing the core of the org: its people. Resource allocation is our call and our calling. And we need more resources in our people. Yesterday. We need Board members who can focus solely on this tremendous task, on shaping us into a more reasonable, professional space. With the number of directors we have now, we simply cannot do that.
Increasing the number of seats does not come without a cost. It'll be harder for us to meet, and all the other possible communication problems that come with any increase in number of people with their hands in the pot. If we're serious about decreasing the trend in Board members also filling other key org positions — and from Board discussions throughout the term, this is the direction we're headed — this means that whoever we draw into Board will leave behind gaps, the very problem we're already having.
But the change has to start somewhere, and I think there is no way around the need for slowdown. Slowdown would make the gaps in coverage a little less dire, as the work will perforce be less urgent. There's no way around the fact that it will still suck. If there is a pain-free solution to this problem, I cannot think of it. The pain is already here. It already hurts. If we do this, it will at least be pain that's paid towards something other than perpetuating the same system we already have.
The bottom line, for me, is this: We need this increase because we are failing our people right now. Board needs these resources so that we, in turn, can give the rest of the org the resources it needs.
jennyst and revisions and input from Board, the Elections Workgroup, and Comms. (I also did the graphics; it was a nightmare.)So there's a lot going on here. I was Elections Officer last term, so I have a pretty keen interest in elections goings-on. I never really posted about my election works much: near the start of elections, I went on leave for a family illness, during elections it was necessary for me to remain neutral (which was simplest by staying quiet), and afterwards, I was, frankly, too exhausted and demoralized. Until recently, I was also too sick. Basically I have a backlog of elections
The things I want to cover include:
- What are you thinking with this adding seats business?
- How did we get into this mess with the seats?
- What happened last year?
- How will elections work this year?
But then I realized this would be very tl;dr. I do know I have a problem. So I'm saving the last three items for later; today is going to be all about:
Adding Board Seats, Burnout, and Taking Care of Our People
Just to be clear from the start, the idea of adding Board seats does not spring solely from a need to fix the elections issue. (This is another reason I want to cover the more electiony stuff separately: it is a separate issue.) As the OTW news post linked above demonstrates, it certainly helps. But the Board does honestly struggle with workload in ways that would be ameliorated by being able to spread the work around a little. Our committees are growing; the number of committees is growing; the number, reach, and scope of our projects are growing — and that's all awesome, but it's also simply too much for seven people to cover.
However! Not all of the workload stems from this. A large part of Board's problem is that we are currently still too involved in micromanagement and/or management on a level that causes conflicts of interest. As an example, when some kind of staffing or work gap appears (say, due to a sudden retirement), we often feel like we have to be the ones to step up, either first or as backup. And in the case of filling chair positions, I think it also creates conflicts of interest. We do not do this to hog positions or work, but because we often feel like there is no one else — we are some of the most experienced people in the org with a wide range of skills. But this also gives short shrift to everyone else in the org and robs people of opportunities to grow.
There's not really a simple answer like "well Board should just stop filling these gaps themselves". A lot of the time these positions are pretty key and there is work that needs to be done urgently: we don't have time to wait for someone to train up or to recruit someone. The real issue here is a lack of personnel management and succession planning, not just for chairs — something we've been keenly aware of this year — but for key positions at every level. If we were consistently training people up and had a framework in place whereby anyone doing load-bearing work had an understudy, we wouldn't be having this problem. But one huge obstacle is that
[ETA 01]: After reading
bookshop's comment, I think this (from my response to her) would be a more precise and accurate statement: The org is collectively more concerned with producing popular and/or acceptable output (often in the form of projects) than with doing the personnel support and management necessary to make that work happen in a healthy way. Apologies for the suboptimal initial wording! [/ETA]And it's not fair. I know it's not fair. It's not fair to our staff and volunteers, who do this work because they love it and believe in it. It's not fair to our audience, who have to wait on things that matter to them. It's not fair because in the end, we collectively screwed up and now everyone, whether part of the problem or not, has to pay for it. We made a collection of mistakes that put us in this position. There is no one person or group of people to blame; the issue is too endemic.
But the status quo, letting it continue— I think that would be even more unfair. It undermines our work. It undermines our people. People leave the org feeling sick and used. Even if people simply leave feeling tired and nothing more, their legacy is tarnished by our poor ability to preserve it: the work they left suffers from the lack of structure, because the people left to continue it don't have enough support, in one way or another, to do the work proud.
Our Volunteers & Recruiting committee does not have the resources right now to handle a huge influx of people at any level, from volunteers to high-up staff, though I know they are working their asses off to strengthen the personnel management aspects of the org (read
renay's posts; she is Volcom chair and does mind-boggling amounts of work). But even if Volcom could handle an influx, the rest of the org, for the most part, still can't: almost everyone is already overwhelmed by project-based work, way too much to do the mentoring and nurturing necessary to handle incoming volunteers. This is one huge reason behind the endemic burnout: there's no one there to catch you.We cannot afford to keep growing our projects without growing our people.
So what does this have to do with increasing the number of Board seats? I mean, reducing Board workload is nice, but — given everything else — so what?
I think an increase in Board seats has to be part and parcel of a movement to decrease Board micromanagement and increase Board's role in (temporarily) slowing down project growth while focusing instead of growing the core of the org: its people. Resource allocation is our call and our calling. And we need more resources in our people. Yesterday. We need Board members who can focus solely on this tremendous task, on shaping us into a more reasonable, professional space. With the number of directors we have now, we simply cannot do that.
Increasing the number of seats does not come without a cost. It'll be harder for us to meet, and all the other possible communication problems that come with any increase in number of people with their hands in the pot. If we're serious about decreasing the trend in Board members also filling other key org positions — and from Board discussions throughout the term, this is the direction we're headed — this means that whoever we draw into Board will leave behind gaps, the very problem we're already having.
But the change has to start somewhere, and I think there is no way around the need for slowdown. Slowdown would make the gaps in coverage a little less dire, as the work will perforce be less urgent. There's no way around the fact that it will still suck. If there is a pain-free solution to this problem, I cannot think of it. The pain is already here. It already hurts. If we do this, it will at least be pain that's paid towards something other than perpetuating the same system we already have.
The bottom line, for me, is this: We need this increase because we are failing our people right now. Board needs these resources so that we, in turn, can give the rest of the org the resources it needs.
no subject
Sigh. You know, I understand the impetus behind all this, but at the same time it honestly feels a bit like smoke and mirrors to me. Because, for instance, this:
that the org is collectively often too busy doing its project-based work to also do its people-based work
I have had serious difficulties doing any of my project-based work over the last two months because whenever those of us who want to move projects forward do things to move the projects forward, we're immediately blocked by other people throwing hissy fits or ego tantrums or ignoring our work or refusing to support us for whatever bullshit political reasons, and otherwise hanging us out to dry. So if this is the org being busy doing its project-based work, then I have to say, as someone on the ground trying to actually do that work and seeing hours and hours of hard work (my own and other people's) repeatedly undone, blown off, ignored, ruined because of miscommunications and procedural hangups, and/or cast aside in favor of placating people with bigger egos than ours, that work is not actually happening.
And since it's not actually happening, then it just feels like an excuse. We're not doing projects or building the builders.
(At least, we're not doing non-AO3-related projects.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I look forward to the other ones - I admit that I was particularly worried about fixing the elections; not because elections-omg but because, well, they're the only true input members have into the leadership of the org, and I worry about representation / turnover / fairness. 3 renewals every year for 3 year seats on a 9 person board is exactly what I wanted. I just hope we get to a place where board burnout & early retirement as a phenomenon is a lot more rare... Here's to hoping. :)
(no subject)
no subject
I am dubious about adding Board seats. My concerns rest with the ability of Board to say as a group, "We have to stop growing and focus on established projects." and "We have to learn to let go." When I requested a halt on workgroups, stressed out of my mind that we were continuing to add lead positions, when those leads are just chairs under another name, I was surprised that Board accepted it without argument. That was a step in the right direction. But it has to apply to everything.
However, I remain unconvinced that adding the seats won't simply result in exactly what we're seeing right now: Board members doing more staff work than Board work because we're already hurting for leaders and there are no people to step in and people who refuse to step in. I worry it means Board members will chair committees and then will be their own liaisons, leaving no recourse for staff members to agitate for change or feel like they have the ability to challenge decisions or the status quo. This utopia of Board members being equal enough to serve as on-the ground leaders does not yet exist. The walls are still, effectively for volunteers, up and impossible to see through (i.e. meetings are only available to staff; volunteers still have to go by only minutes). This equality and the ability for Board members to know what hat is appropriate will probably not exist for years. The way it stands now, if this happens and we fall back to the old ways of people not letting staff work go, it will continue to bottleneck growth. As has happened and continues to happen, it will lead to an unrelenting grip on the projects claimed by Board members (because those motivated to run for Board have high ownership over their projects), and it will hurt the enthusiasm and retention of our staff who want to do work and create positive changes, not be continually and repeatedly blocked because their leaders are Board members and there's no where else to turn. This behavior often isn't malicious, but the nature of our hierarchy makes it seem that way.
Emphasis mine. This would be nice, but I also think it's unrealistic. I see people who ran for Board doing the same work they were doing as staff on top of Board work. They haven't let go of the staff work because nothing requires them to. They're invested, and rightly so, because they've given energy and time, but in some cases, it's hurting us greatly. Unless what you present in this quote actually happens, I honestly don't believe it will be a positive change at all. It will just be more of the same.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I left the org a couple of months ago. I felt mentally paralysed and completely unable to do my work. I initially thought that it was all because of my depression, but since then I've come to the realisation that I was wrong. My depression was certainly a factor, in that it shaped the way I reacted to the stress of the work. However, something triggered that response, since I was otherwise quite well.
I've come to the conclusion that over the two years I'd been an OTW staffer, I'd slowly burned out on that work. I agree with you that it's systemic problem inside the org. People didn't have time to properly mentor newcomers. Moreover, the necessary mentoring structures simply weren't there. The combined effect of those two things was that it was like being thrown off the deep end and told to swim.
I miss the org, and I now feel a glimmer of hope. I feel like it might be possible for me to return at some point. I don't mean that the org has to be perfect for that to happen. Just, there needs to be awareness that we have to work on this. The feeling that nothing is changing -- that is one of the most debilitating feelings.
(no subject)
(no subject)