Milan/Notes on Structure and Organisation

These notes are being written in response to perceived attitudes among the "Cocreators" group, which are directed against organisation and structure. These notes are to be used as talking points to generally respond to the attitude that organisation is not required in the new way of working together amongst people aspiring to create alternatives to the competitive model. Frequently asked questions, quotes and examples are to be gathered in these notes as well.--Milan 10:05, 5 Dec 2006 (NZDT)

Harmony

I think a core issue with their attitude is that they believe organisation to be in opposition to harmony, when really organisation allows sustainable harmony and lack of organisation leads to chaos (disharmony). --Nad 10:19, 5 Dec 2006 (NZDT)

Indeed, organisation is equated with centralisation, bureaucracy, control and profit structures. However from my perspective that is one extreme. The other extreme is lack of structure, complete spontaneity without regard to cost, as well as time wasted due to unclear communication and lack of structure. The middle path of sustainability is organic organisation, agreement on goals and specific timelines within which to achieve these, as well as working out the resources required and managing these resources carefully.

Harmony within the group is seen as total acceptance of what is. We are asked to let go of goals or ideals and that concerns about productivity, waste (of time and money) or utilisation are just personal concerns. This approach does not allow us to have earnest feedback which allows our group form to evolve.

Cocreators specific

Why have this discussion at all? Why not just disengage and do my own thing? Because I see a group of people with high ideals and great potential, a group which has given me much, in terms of my personal learning, access to resources, people and projects and many a shared workshop.

From my own perspective I have observed developments within the group which have occurred after the euphoric initial phase of the group forming. On an everyday level, I see resources that are underutilised, such as the Swanson Sanctuary. On Basecamp, I see projects that are stagnating, in fact the majority of them have seen very little movement over the last few months. There is not much going on in terms of paying the bills and working together to do so on an everyday basis.

This is coupled with the attitude that we don't need structure or organisation, that everyone is welcome and "it will all just happen" if we can just be in the moment. Now we have a situation which means that very few people are paying most of the bills at Swanson Sanctuary and very few of us are doing the work to keep it going. There are gardens that aren't being planted. There are roles which aren't being filled, such as the house keeper or the grounds keeper. The required organisational structures have not been defined, these roles haven't been created, therefore whether the work gets done or the bills get paid is dependent on the very personal perceptions of the people involved day-to-day.

What will happen when these key people run out of steam? How will the group carry on, get their work done and pay the bills in a harmonious way? We have seen many similar groups in the past which have drawn a group of people together and made a great start, but collapsed after a few key people realised they were doing all the work and left. In my eyes, the Cocreators group is a great bunch of people who are very generous and very loving, who are working on some projects together. I will always want to be a part of this group because of that.

However it is commonly stated that the Cocreators group also represents a new way of living and working together, a new sustainable model, a model for living outside of the corporate, centralised unsustainable current system. I had hoped for the group to be that myself, however how can something that is not defined be a model? How can something that is based on the contributions a few very generous people be sustainable? How can something evolve that has no structure and by definition no feedback channels by which to improve the structure? How can something help 7 Billion people produce the food, clothing, houses, technology that are required if it is not teachable, based on organisational systems and templates to allow quick distribution?

Examples

Lost productivity seems of no great concern within the group, however few things are more precious than our personal time. With defined procedures the Cocreators group could be so much more productive, allowing us to get more done in the same amount of time or spend less time working to pay the bills, leaving us more time to meditate or learn or just be. I was witness to a Cocreators project within which a whole day was lost trying to create an Adobe PDF file, which is a trivial task with the right tools. However this did not lead to any feedback or change which will allow us to avoid such waste in future. This begs the question: If something is worth doing, is it not worth doing in the most effective way possible?