New hybrid forms of organisations..?

I think we'll soon see new hybrid forms of organisations. Why?

• People generally want more control but not liability
• Volunteering rates are down generally
• people are time poor
• committee meetings are pretty boring (speaking as a trustee) and often don't deal with the real reasons people joined the charity in the first place
• Lots of new governance structures have been set up which look for 'patient involvement' or similar
• There has been an increase in charities over the last 15 years
• People are more used to being involved (or consulted) on what brands, companies, institutions are doing and expect to be a part of things so consumerism gives (many) people what they want in this area
• The vast majority of trustees who are used to the current systems are older and will retire soonish.

So what are some options for doing something about it?

• share options for voluntary orgs (so people feel a part of an org without being a committee member)
• have organisations anyone can use to do pro-social things
• massive increase in membership and different mambership models (maybe not after your square mile http://beanbagsandbullsh1t.com/2013/08/02/your-square-mile-misses-3-million-membership-target-by-2999860/)
• have a city/town level organisation that already has a membership and allows other people to use it.

Basically we're talking about use over use without ownership. calling the shots without having to do the governance. I know about one click orgs - is there anyway around the governance question or is it just something we need to live with.
Thoughts..?

Getting things done.. Your workflow diagram

(What this workflow does NOT show you is what needs doing..)

Using money in the social system in a different way

It used to be the case, when there was public  funding around, that organisations used to write a plan, get some money and employ someone to do the work. This was fine in simple delivery jobs, but a lot of the later jobs were about coordination. And partnerships. And leverage. And it was always difficult to get these things done from a single post. Hence job shares and co-responsibility for roles etc, but all fairly clunky. 

With a lot of service redesign work this kind of work is more needed than ever. But I'm pretty convinced that it can't be done by the "in house post" model. It's neat, and easy to account for but there are just too many variables out of one persons hands. Then there is the added complication of paid workers asking citizens or volunteers to be more work (under the banner of coproduction or other good things), and the blurred line between paid staff working with and asking volunteers/community to do the delivery work.

So the WHAT is probably right, but not the HOW. So what are the alternatives?

1. Shared money across orgs which increase current posts
2. Increased delivery funds but not to fund post costs
3. Increase slush funds for volunteers/community 
4. Primes and subcontractor model
5. CVS or other holding funds (thanks @gethynwilliams)
6. Run a small grants programme
7. Do something else?

 

I have worked for a large funder and I know the costs associated with some of this stuff, so I would err on the side of low accountability in formal terms but more emphasis on reflective practice long term. 

 

But all this seems fairly clunky. Thoughts?

For ever, for everyone. What does this mean for the National Trust inthe twenty-first century?

Here's a link to Helen Ghosh talking about "For ever, for everyone. What does this mean for the National Trust in the twenty-first century?" http://www.ncl.ac.uk/events/public-lectures/item.php?for-ever-for-everyone-what-does-this-mean-for-the-national-trust-in-the-twenty-first-century

To cut a long story short its a mix of a charity using the best tools of business building a massive following. and in the future increasingly focusing on land management and use of land (rather than built stuff).

If you fancy listening for 1 hour + questions you can find the full presentation here https://campus.recap.ncl.ac.uk/Panopto/Pages/Embed/Default.aspx?id=4d0c55bf-aaa3-4ab9-9a89-24a3d3ceb4f8&v=1, but i have ripped out three of the slides which i think are interesting.
So what can we learn from how it operates?

1. its have devolved leadership - a national organisation with local sites under the guise of 'freedom under a framework'
2. it operates on a consultancy model with client focus and accountability
3. it generates a lot of money and spends a lot forwarding its mission, above and beyond its operating costs

Its also hyper conscious to a future which will not look like the present, in a timescale which many of us don't. i wonder if we had the same view of human social change as they have of things, what we would do differently..? It also raised the question of where the organisation was in Danny Boyle's 2012 Olympic opening ceremony..? Its more trusted than the BBC and the NHS (particularly recently) but what would get it the point where its as loved as those two institutions..?

Interesting stuff on Octavia Hill the social reformer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavia_Hill And on classification of memberships, and audience profiling.