Re: Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:49 pm
Alcoholics Anonymous figured out, in the 1940s, how to run a huge volunteer organization without creating central control. Basically, the money only flows into the central organization, not the other way. AA never subsidizes local groups or individuals. (There were some very small exceptions in the very early days, before they figured out the Traditions.) The central organization does not seek donations from outsiders, there is no "endowment," and bequests are severely limited, so the central organization is constantly dependent on volunteer donations from local groups and local intergroups. That keeps them honest, for if the central organization, which is legally independent and has no control over local meetings, attempted to dominate, they would lose funding. The local groups do not need the central organization to function, instead, central needs the local. AA figured out a method for allowing the representation at the General Service Conference to be broad, the GSC is the primary tool for expressing organization-wide consensus. It's not perfect, but very good. With what we now know, it could be done even better.
When there is a central power, with operational control over communication, it will be corrupted. That's the Iron Law of Oligarchy (T-H-L). "Corrupted" means that original ideals are lost in favor of control by a group that sees itself as being the organization, or as being the "vanguard," or the "best" or "best qualified." It all happens with what seem to be the best of intentions, it happens because of the structure.
Since this group sees itself in this way (and it might even be right in some ways), criticism of the group is interpreted as hostile to the purposes of the organization. And critics are then suppressed, unless they happen to be well-connected, in which case they may be tolerated, partly to prove, "There is no cabal. See, we tolerate So-and-so, even though So-and-so is uncivilly critical." Gradually, though, as the old guard burns out (or simply retires, same effect), the protection of these expires. And they are banned for what used to be acceptable.
Reading Wikinomics (T-H-L) (2008) it's easy to see the hype, the assumption that content would only continue to improve, that collaboration would work indefinitely, with no hint of any suspicion that darker forces would take over. Those darker forces were there early on, if anyone knew what to look for. Hint: they were not confronted by the community or what passed for leadership. As would be routine, then, they got stronger.
There was a much better book, The Starfish and the Spider (T-H-L) (2006, Branfman and Beckstrom). They were still naive about Wikipedia, but got this right: Starfish organizations can be corrupted. To counter this, Bill Wilson created the Traditions (and "Twelve Concepts for World Service") which spelled out the result of his study of what had caused previous temperance organizations to fail. Wales understood some of this, but clearly not all. So, naively, the conditions for failure to fully realize the vision, for organizational corruption, were set up.
The WMF is a classical nonprofit corporation, doing what classical nonprofits do: raise a lot of money, hire staff (which then becomes personally interested in maintaining the status quo), and spend the money according to central decision-making.
Branfman and Beckstrong suggest hybrid organizations. That is, there is what I called a Free Association, the AA fellowship itself being an example. And there is a corporation, in AA it is AA World Services, Inc., which owns the copyright to the books. However, AA never did go for massive fundraising. The Big Book, the major property, is a self-supporting project, it is run to break even, it doesn't fund much beyond itself. The books are sold very cheaply, almost entirely to local groups, which often give them away. Local intergroups used to publish their own literature, some still do. It is not "Conference-Approved," typically. So what?
AA members can disagree with any of the published material. Nobody is excluded for that reason, and nobody is ever banned from AA as a whole. And they deal with some real doozies!
Individual meetings may exclude individuals, for whatever the local meeting decides. It is considered almost tantamount to a death sentence, for a real alcoholic, so they only *normally* do this for safety reasons. However, individuals can and do take over individual meetings. It works or it doesn't. Meetings don't accumulate property precisely to avoid the attraction of power. So a meeting is essentially a meeting place and time, and a coffee pot. When some alcoholic goes on a "dry drunk" and tries to control a meeting, members do not generally fight with him.
The saying is, "All it takes to start a meeting is a resentment and a coffee pot." For alcoholics, resentments are in plentiful supply! So if someone tries to control a meeting, dissatisfied members simply start a new meeting, creating more times and opportunities for people to go to a meeting. AA grew explosively, harnessing the power of resentment and radical decentralization.
Yet AA has a very high level of real consensus, a consensus that is not created by exclusion. People who don't accept what are sometimes considered "basic AA rules," are not excluded. Someone who says, "I can take a drink any time I want to, I just need to cut down, you guys are weak-willed," isn't told to go away. Classically, they are told, "Great! We all wish we could do that! Keep coming back, we want to know how it works for you!"
AA is a human organization, all the human stuff happens. However, they raised organizational decentralization to a fine art, so those very human actions don't dominate.
There is a good summary of The Starfish and the Spider at link..
Now, about that Iron Law. Michels missed something. Oligarchies will form, that is indeed inevitable. But if the oligarchy is continually dependent upon the base, it may not be inevitable for the oligarchy to actually dominate. Rather, it would assume its natural function, to lead and serve.
When there is a central power, with operational control over communication, it will be corrupted. That's the Iron Law of Oligarchy (T-H-L). "Corrupted" means that original ideals are lost in favor of control by a group that sees itself as being the organization, or as being the "vanguard," or the "best" or "best qualified." It all happens with what seem to be the best of intentions, it happens because of the structure.
Since this group sees itself in this way (and it might even be right in some ways), criticism of the group is interpreted as hostile to the purposes of the organization. And critics are then suppressed, unless they happen to be well-connected, in which case they may be tolerated, partly to prove, "There is no cabal. See, we tolerate So-and-so, even though So-and-so is uncivilly critical." Gradually, though, as the old guard burns out (or simply retires, same effect), the protection of these expires. And they are banned for what used to be acceptable.
Reading Wikinomics (T-H-L) (2008) it's easy to see the hype, the assumption that content would only continue to improve, that collaboration would work indefinitely, with no hint of any suspicion that darker forces would take over. Those darker forces were there early on, if anyone knew what to look for. Hint: they were not confronted by the community or what passed for leadership. As would be routine, then, they got stronger.
There was a much better book, The Starfish and the Spider (T-H-L) (2006, Branfman and Beckstrom). They were still naive about Wikipedia, but got this right: Starfish organizations can be corrupted. To counter this, Bill Wilson created the Traditions (and "Twelve Concepts for World Service") which spelled out the result of his study of what had caused previous temperance organizations to fail. Wales understood some of this, but clearly not all. So, naively, the conditions for failure to fully realize the vision, for organizational corruption, were set up.
The WMF is a classical nonprofit corporation, doing what classical nonprofits do: raise a lot of money, hire staff (which then becomes personally interested in maintaining the status quo), and spend the money according to central decision-making.
Branfman and Beckstrong suggest hybrid organizations. That is, there is what I called a Free Association, the AA fellowship itself being an example. And there is a corporation, in AA it is AA World Services, Inc., which owns the copyright to the books. However, AA never did go for massive fundraising. The Big Book, the major property, is a self-supporting project, it is run to break even, it doesn't fund much beyond itself. The books are sold very cheaply, almost entirely to local groups, which often give them away. Local intergroups used to publish their own literature, some still do. It is not "Conference-Approved," typically. So what?
AA members can disagree with any of the published material. Nobody is excluded for that reason, and nobody is ever banned from AA as a whole. And they deal with some real doozies!
Individual meetings may exclude individuals, for whatever the local meeting decides. It is considered almost tantamount to a death sentence, for a real alcoholic, so they only *normally* do this for safety reasons. However, individuals can and do take over individual meetings. It works or it doesn't. Meetings don't accumulate property precisely to avoid the attraction of power. So a meeting is essentially a meeting place and time, and a coffee pot. When some alcoholic goes on a "dry drunk" and tries to control a meeting, members do not generally fight with him.
The saying is, "All it takes to start a meeting is a resentment and a coffee pot." For alcoholics, resentments are in plentiful supply! So if someone tries to control a meeting, dissatisfied members simply start a new meeting, creating more times and opportunities for people to go to a meeting. AA grew explosively, harnessing the power of resentment and radical decentralization.
Yet AA has a very high level of real consensus, a consensus that is not created by exclusion. People who don't accept what are sometimes considered "basic AA rules," are not excluded. Someone who says, "I can take a drink any time I want to, I just need to cut down, you guys are weak-willed," isn't told to go away. Classically, they are told, "Great! We all wish we could do that! Keep coming back, we want to know how it works for you!"
AA is a human organization, all the human stuff happens. However, they raised organizational decentralization to a fine art, so those very human actions don't dominate.
There is a good summary of The Starfish and the Spider at link..
Now, about that Iron Law. Michels missed something. Oligarchies will form, that is indeed inevitable. But if the oligarchy is continually dependent upon the base, it may not be inevitable for the oligarchy to actually dominate. Rather, it would assume its natural function, to lead and serve.
