page: 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19

The Results of Tight Control in the Movement

Many of the characteristics of the movement may suggest that a tightly controlled implementation of strategies designed at the top is a way to go. However, the main problem is that an organization that fits the criteria is no longer viable in the environment that the movement is operating in today.

The writing always was on the wall. When a member switched from fundraising to witnessing, the increase in complexity was noticeable. It was often interpreted away.

In the simple fundraising environment tight control often works. People learn quickly to stop whining about being sleepy, unhappy or because they are neglected. They learn to focus on their goal and make it. Also this is a useful lesson.

However, in this environment it can happen, that a leader fully relies on coercive means, artificially increasing hardship and ignoring people’s needs. The teaching around the Cain-Abel relationship lends it self to misinterpretation and misuse, bolstering the leader position at the expense of the members rights and can even corrupt the attitude of the leader.

The many negative experiences that former and current members tell about their fundraising time are a strong indication that this really happened. Some people experienced serious shit – to say the least.

No matter how good or bad the experiences in the early years are, the general behavior pattern is then carried into the further career within the movement.

Some members who tell their story, say that they staid much longer in fundraising teams than 3.5 years, sometimes 10 years or even longer. However, at some time people graduate from that level and move on to witnessing centers.

Here, the environment is a little more complex and simply following the instructions of the leader through all difficulties does not yield the same result. Good fundraisers often started struggling and entered a crisis, being thrown off course and sometimes left the movement. These cases had nothing to do with mistreatment. The simple paradigm of the fundraising team no longer worked, but there was little that would take its place – the Cain-Abel relationship, modeled after the fundraising pattern, usually remained priority number one.

That meant “Work hard, do your best, ‘unite’ with the leader (Abel) unconditionally”.

That approach has worked well in the past where life was simple emergency. But it has resulted in a widespread inward focus and vertical, hierarchy based relationships. A term sometimes used for organizations like this is “mechanistic organization”.

To some degree or other the problems are seen by the leaders and the members. Many speak of changing the culture and mindset, even at the very top. If that will work and, if yes, how, that is another topic.
 

Copyright © Cultural Communications, foreignlands.org, 2005, 2006. All rights reserved.

the old man

Best viewed with: