I wrote it from the standpoint of wanting the current conflict to be resolved between all the stakeholders of OY. And it says something about how I imagine myself: not caught up in the conflict, and having a broader perspective that I worry they're missing.
Dear OY Directors,
I didn't send it to them. I don't know them or where they're at, so I didn't know whether it would help or hurt. But I sent it to the ED and asked her to share it with the Board if she thinks it could be helpful. If they can make some use of my writing, so much the better.
10/22/2011
Dear OY Directors,
I got the email about your stakeholders' forum, which shows me you're thinking about the future. I know there's been a lot of anger directed at you lately. I believe a lot of it isn't about you, but rather reflects a deeply rooted, longstanding problem at OY. I hope this letter will help you understand it so you can plan for a better future.
In my time at Out Youth, several intense conflicts have divided the organization. These conflicts pose a serious risk. Infighting takes energy away from OY's work. It can damage the organization's image to those on the outside and the sense of safety for youth on the inside. It also takes a serious toll on all the people OY needs at full capacity – including the board. This is a big reason nobody ever seems to last more than a couple years on the board or staff.
I've come to notice a pattern to these conflicts – a fault line, if you will, that tends to split OY. That fault line is a set-up for people like you to join the organization and relive the same conflict over and over. I'm hoping you'll be the generation to fix it.
The fault line I've seen is a disconnect about how people understand OY's mission – and how that shapes their vision for the organization.
On one side, there are people who come to Out Youth with lots of mission-related expertise. These folks have a sophisticated perspective on the mission, seeing LGBT youth work in terms of systemic oppression. They relate heterosexism to other forms of oppression, like racism and adultism. And they want OY run in a way that reflects principles of anti-oppression work. They question hierarchical power structures and value inclusion, collaboration, and democratic decision-making. And they relate to OY as a family. When Out Youth is not led based on anti-oppression principles, they see it as a betrayal of OY's very mission by people who don't get it.
On the other side of the fault line are people recruited for other skills and strengths. These folks tend to have experience in disciplines and organizations unrelated to OY's mission. They're often used to businesslike management styles and have seen these work well elsewhere. They oppose heterosexism, want better for today's youth, and focus on this separately from other social issues. When OY's leadership is pushed towards more democratic, inclusive decision-making, or challenged about acting too impersonally, this group sees a bunch of naive idealists gumming up the works.
(It's not really this black-and-white. Each of us is an individual too complicated to pigeonhole. But you get the idea.)
This happens at many small, community-based organizations with civil/human rights missions. It generally plays out between the board of directors and the professional staff – because as a rule, staff are recruited for mission-related expertise and a board isn't.
Because of this fault line, OY is set up for division. It's like two organizations, each with its own values and culture. Youth, staff, and volunteers live together in one OY, while the board is largely separate. The only person who sees both sides is the ED, who's caught between the two groups.
When the two groups come together directly, especially when people are upset with the board about something, the cultures clash. People talk past each other left and right. Board members are generally on the defensive. At best their judgment is questioned, and at worst it gets personal. Criticism of the board can be preachy and sanctimonious. Rarely does anyone express appreciation for the board's contribution or understanding of its challenges. All this makes the board want to withdraw from the interaction.
Board members can also contribute to the conflict. They often presume they know all they need to know, and it shows. This devalues others' expertise, perspectives, and importance to the organization. The board may dictate terms of engagement unilaterally, without regard to whether these will adequately meet the needs of others. Even small things can indicate that the board – the group with ultimate authority over OY – doesn't get the sense of family or the mission the way others do. This is threatening because the board has the power to unilaterally change OY's direction, and you could lead it away from its mission-related fundamentals. That makes people outside of the board want more control over OY's direction.
(This perceived threat is very real. A drastic change in direction can happen even by accident, as when the board hired Amy Arquilla as ED in late 2005. They didn't realize how out of step she was with the mission. They certainly didn't expect the staff to quit and the youth/volunteers to revolt. If they hadn't run out of money and laid her off soon after, she might have stayed long enough to drive away everyone who knew better. And everything OY was doing really right would have been lost.)
I hope it's clear how this is a recipe for conflicts to escalate out of control. It's created huge problems for OY in the 9 years I've been around. We've lost lots of good people, and OY's viability as an organization has been at risk more than once.
There's one obvious remedy for it: Out Youth needs to be a unified organization, with the mission incorporated into the board's culture and operations.
There are many ways this could look. I've heard both good and awful ideas, even from people with mission-related expertise. I'm afraid you might focus on the awful ideas and decide the whole thing's a load of crap. But the principles of anti-oppression work are solid, if OY can only figure out smart ways to incorporate them. (And if you can all get along well enough to work together on it.)
I hope you'll consider making this happen. It will take a serious commitment of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere. But it will reduce the horrible cost of these recurring conflicts, which keep OY in a constant state of crisis and transition, threatening both the organization's work and its existence. That's the tradeoff.
Good luck! Thanks for your commitment and hard work. And please feel free to contact me if you want to know more of the history.
In solidarity--
Matt Smith
Edit 10/26 3:17PM
I'm adding this disclaimer, or clarification, or whatever, on where I stand. I don't feel aligned with one side or the other of this conflict. Ideologically, I'm on the anti-oppression side. So in that respect, I'm not aligned with the board. But I don't have a concrete vision for how OY should look. I don't really care, as long as it's based on the mission. So in that respect, I'm not aligned with the Out Youth Family Collective, who have a specific platform.
I also haven't seen either side examining themselves, and how they may be part of the problem... or showing much charity to the other side. So that's another way I don't feel connected with either side. I'd be a lot happier if I thought people were being more open to each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment