There’s a popular saying, “when we assume, it makes an ass out of u and me.” We take a lot of things for granted when we are in positions of leadership. We assume that we have been elected because people thought we were the right person for the job. We assume that we will figure out a way to work with other people on the board. We assume that we are working in the best interest of the group we are serving. But we also assume that the organization will go on forever. That we cannot screw up so badly that the organization falls apart.
This isn’t just about a change in leadership, where a new person or group takes over as the leader of the organization. It’s about the organization dissolving financially. The membership abandoning the organization. The system of leadership crumbling or morphing into something completely different.
We always kind of assume that we are immune to history. We prefer to look on the bright side of things and assume that things will just keep getting better and better. But just like the law of gravity, what goes up, must come down. All things eventually come to an end. Whether large or small, democratic organizations are based on trust. And trust can be easily broken. Here is are some warning signs to look out for and a way to keep your balance.

Don’t sweat the small stuff

Many times, people – including those in leadership — do not see the end coming.  They can often be surrounded by people who are working under the same assumption, i.e. that the system is working fine and the organization will carry on as ever.  They fail to see the organization from the outside in, and they prefer to keep their blinders on.  It’s easier to tackle minor issues than the major issues, and the true structural issues never get addressed. Squabbling over the semantics in the mission statement distracts from how the organization is operating. Members’ doubts about budgets are overridden by their excitement for their own pet projects. Overall membership dwindles while the board argues over the various privileges that come with membership. Lack of members leads to lack of volunteers and funds, which leads to a vicious cycle and the organization finally sinks.  The metaphor of “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” is a very apt analogy.

Tearing it all down can collapse on you

On the other hand, leaders can also act prematurely and take on more change than the organization can bear. Instead of tinkering around the edges, they decide to tear everything down and start all over again. We restructure the membership, we eliminate long-standing programs, we add entirely new programs, we turnover all of the staff, we change the name or branding of the organization, or we change the governance model.

It’s a very tempting idea that can sound deceptively easy and lets us think that we are actually “making progress” in the organization.  Perhaps leaving a legacy.  But it is still based on the assumption that the organization will continue in the future.  That all these radical changes will somehow not have any real consequences on the foundation or structure of the organization. But physics tells us that every force has an equal, opposing force.  No change is without fallout.
The road to hell is often paved with good intentions and the devil is in the details. Exciting new programs or systems can take much longer than anticipated and be much more expensive to implement. Staff turnover can result in a more expensive and less experienced staff. Even simple changes to the name of the organization can mean that members no longer recognize the organization they thought they had joined, and their support evaporates. Once you have torn down it all down, rebuilding can take much longer than anticipated and is not guaranteed at all.

Slow and steady wins the race

How the leadership makes decisions is just as important, if not more important, than what the organization decides. Democratic systems are designed to take time so that the leadership can think things through, see all sides of an issue, and come up with the best possible answer to an issue. Especially when there are no good answers to chose from.

It’s easy to decide that things need a radical approach. But radicalism is just decision-making based on exclusion. It prioritizes the ego of the few over the interests of the many. Their self-centeredness leads radical leaders to think that they understand the “true” desires or needs of the membership or citizenry. But the organization wasn’t built on the radical ideas being proposed. It took a long series of carefully considered decisions to build an organization that the current membership is a part of and supports with their dollars.
Understandably, this slow, incremental approach can frustrate people. But incrementalism is decision-making based on inclusion. The leadership considers the impact of decisions on as much of the larger membership as possible. This may result in inconsistent policies or less efficient systems. That’s why running a government is not the same as running a business. Decision-making in democratic systems ultimately resides with the citizenry or membership, not with a CEO. An incremental approach is needed because in the end, it is the support of the larger group that keeps the organization afloat. Otherwise, everyone loses.

So, when the waves get rough and there are storm clouds on the horizon, don’t ignore them. But don’t panic either. Keep your eyes on the horizon and your wits about you, and you will find your balance.