Forming Re-Enactor Umbrella Organizations

[theM.A.dDogge]

The other topic that I mentioned wanting to review before posting about has to do withthe idea of creating a centralized/insurable organization.

The trouble with organizations is that they quickly create organizational filters - a process through which all new ideas must pass. This can be formal or informal - formal being submission, regimented procedures, etc; informal being more along the lines of perhaps you mention the idea to a few people of influence first, to get their support, before bringing the idea to the group as a whole. Even in organizations that on the surface seem extremely open to new ways of thinking can have such stringent filters that few ideas get implemented.

Think of it like a funnel - wide open on one end, but so narrow and specifically shaped at the end that only ideas that fit the preconceived mold actually get through.

Now, these filters come from expertise and the more "expert" an organization is, the more filters it is likely to have in place. Unfortunately, this means that while the filters can help the group get a little better at what it is that they already do, they also act of formidable barriers to doing something a whole lot better or completely differently.

The most telling thing about all this is the source from which I pulled it: The Innovation Killer, by Cynthia Barton Rabe.

...i think they ....CAN as act as formidable barriers....depending on WHO is maning the filter....and can be dangerous for a group if they dont temper it with another funnel...to get ideas from.

but to have a group successful...i do believe that funnels...as well as filters are needed....there are formulas that work for what is trying to be accomplished...and they should continue to be used...as long as there are new formulas being tried out as well...with the goal to improve.

[RedJessi]

...i think they ....CAN as act as formidable barriers....depending on WHO is maning the filter....and can be dangerous for a group if they dont temper it with another funnel...to get ideas from.

but to have a group successful...i do believe that funnels...as well as filters are needed....there are formulas that work for what is trying to be accomplished...and they should continue to be used...as long as there are new formulas being tried out as well...with the goal to improve.

Granted, I try to stay from absolutes in my statements....at the same time, isn't part of the (implied) purpose of an organization to sustain itself? And doesn't that therefore lend credence to the idea that changes of a broader swipe are negatives due to the impact they invariably have on said organizations?

ie - couldn't it be argued that organizations stand in opposition to change?

[Dutchman]

blackbeard has members who have been doing various reenactment periods for forty years on down, the crew has only been together 11. The foundation for two, but we have a much larger stake in the pot that necessitated us organizing a bit differently than others. Blackbeards crew was already established and running just fine so we did not want to mess with it by adding in a major project. We had to do it from the start and do it right, not as a knee jerk to an after thought. As a result of that, we have the nonprofit status and the mythical insurance that gets folks all nutted up. Quite simply, we are all volunteer members who pay annual dues. If someone has an idea for or we are invited to attend an event, provided we have the manpower and it adheres to the mission statement of the foundation, we go. The board does not dictate anything at this level, we are all there for a common cause, and simply do what is in the best interest of the foundation. No fuss no muss- common sense really.

[theM.A.dDogge]

...i think they ....CAN as act as formidable barriers....depending on WHO is maning the filter....and can be dangerous for a group if they dont temper it with another funnel...to get ideas from.

but to have a group successful...i do believe that funnels...as well as filters are needed....there are formulas that work for what is trying to be accomplished...and they should continue to be used...as long as there are new formulas being tried out as well...with the goal to improve.

Granted, I try to stay from absolutes in my statements....at the same time, isn't part of the (implied) purpose of an organization to sustain itself? And doesn't that therefore lend credence to the idea that changes of a broader swipe are negatives due to the impact they invariably have on said organizations?

ie - couldn't it be argued that organizations stand in opposition to change?

again...not nescarilly....once a group stops growing...it eventually dies(in my humble opinion)...a groups goals should never become sstagnant...should always have something to reach for...should not be about simpley excisting...but to accomplish something

oe at least thats what i personally push within groups that i am associated with.

[Dutchman]

so let me get this straight. a crews dream is to have a ship. that crew goes forward with the dream, does the paperwork and legwork to ensure it will be feasible, offers its services and is now "elite"????????????? I don't get it.

well call me silly, but i'd rather go forward with a dream and be considered elite than sit and stagnate.

[RedJessi]

again...not nescarilly....once a group stops growing...it eventually dies(in my humble opinion)...a groups goals should never become sstagnant...should always have something to reach for...should not be about simpley excisting...but to accomplish something

oe at least thats what i personally push within groups that i am associated with.

Agreed - any group must maintain an influx that at least matches the outgoing membership in order to survive.

However, (and I am just asking in a general sense, not because I am against the idea of anyone organizing or organizations in a broader sense) as I previously stated - the funnel of organizational filters allows for a group to become slightly better at what it already does - allowing for subtle changes....but what happens when an overhaul is needed? When the reach needs to exceed anything that has been reached for previously?

In my experience, that can kill an organization just as well as anything else. (as in, the group that bites off more than it can chew and slowly collapses from within...like a flan in a cupboard! )

I think I this point we are bordering on semantics...which is better, an idea or a belief? (According to Kevin Smith - A belief is something people will kill or die for - ie, the crusades...an idea is a lot more maleable and able to accommodate change...and therefore less killing, I suppose. heh) Which is better, an organization or a group?

[RedJessi]

so let me get this straight. a crews dream is to have a ship. that crew goes forward with the dream, does the paperwork and legwork to ensure it will be feasible, offers its services and is now "elite"????????????? I don't get it.

well call me silly, but i'd rather go forward with a dream and be considered elite than sit and stagnate.

For clarification, no one is calling anyone specific person or group here elite or elitist, nor is anyone saying that it is a negative trait to strive for something in particular that you want to strive for. All we are saying is that judging others for not wanting the same thing is not necessarily conducive to a happy and healthy community overall.

I think we are all trying to avoid anyone taking this personally.

[Hawkyns]

Agreed, Dutch. Playing the authentic game and keeping up on the paperwork has got me into places that most folks never get to. When you can discuss this on an equal level with museum directors, and 'walk the walk', as well, it goes a very long way to gaining their respect and cooperation. I would say that the same probably exists for those who are at the top of their game with the street artists and performers, in regard to faire directors and organisors. I guess 'elite' in this case means those who have taken the extra steps to gain their patrons' respect and thereby moved this to a higher level than just weekend hobby.

Hawkyns

[theM.A.dDogge]

again...not nescarilly....once a group stops growing...it eventually dies(in my humble opinion)...a groups goals should never become sstagnant...should always have something to reach for...should not be about simpley excisting...but to accomplish something

oe at least thats what i personally push within groups that i am associated with.

Agreed - any group must maintain an influx that at least matches the outgoing membership in order to survive.

However, (and I am just asking in a general sense, not because I am against the idea of anyone organizing or organizations in a broader sense) as I previously stated - the funnel of organizational filters allows for a group to become slightly better at what it already does - allowing for subtle changes....but what happens when an overhaul is needed? When the reach needs to exceed anything that has been reached for previously?

In my experience, that can kill an organization just as well as anything else. (as in, the group that bites off more than it can chew and slowly collapses from within...like a flan in a cupboard! )

I think I this point we are bordering on semantics...which is better, an idea or a belief? (According to Kevin Smith - A belief is something people will kill or die for - ie, the crusades...an idea is a lot more maleable and able to accommodate change...and therefore less killing, I suppose. heh) Which is better, an organization or a group?

sorry...wasnt meaning to imply membership growth...more of an internal look at ideals and group philosophy.....blahblahblah...

[Capt. Sterling]

All we are saying is that judging others for not wanting the same thing is not necessarily conducive to a happy and healthy community overall.

Which is a very good point, but no one here is doing that...and we are all basically aware of that ideal...

Edited October 5, 2009 by Capt. Sterling

[Capt. Sterling]

it already does - allowing for subtle changes....but what happens when an overhaul is needed? When the reach needs to exceed anything that has been reached for previously?

In my experience, that can kill an organization just as well as anything else.

I guess I just don't quite understand what you are aiming at here.... if an overhaul is needed, why not figure out what is needed and do it? Why not strive to better a group or oneself as an individual? Yes, sometimes that will split up a group, and some will go their separate ways, but it doesn't necessarily mean that is a bad thing...or should we be possibly settling for mediocrity? If folks no longer wish to go forward with a group due to likes/dislikes, time, finances whatever... doesn't mean they are in the wrong, doesn't mean the group they are splitting from is in the wrong either, just means they are no longer seeking the same thing from the activity/goal/desires the group was formed around in the first place...

[blackjohn]

it already does - allowing for subtle changes....but what happens when an overhaul is needed? When the reach needs to exceed anything that has been reached for previously?

In my experience, that can kill an organization just as well as anything else.

I guess I just don't quite understand what you are aiming at here.... if an overhaul is needed, why not figure out what is needed and do it? Why not strive to better a group or oneself as an individual? Yes, sometimes that will split up a group, and some will go their separate ways, but it doesn't necessarily mean that is a bad thing...or should we be possibly settling for mediocrity? If folks no longer wish to go forward with a group due to likes/dislikes, time, finances whatever... doesn't mean they are in the wrong, doesn't mean the group they are splitting from is in the wrong either, just means they are no longer seeking the same thing from the activity/goal/desires the group was formed around in the first place...

test test test...

Don't mind me, I'm just trying to figure out what's going on with Sterling's quote button.

[RedJessi]

I guess I just don't quite understand what you are aiming at here.... if an overhaul is needed, why not figure out what is needed and do it? Why not strive to better a group or oneself as an individual? Yes, sometimes that will split up a group, and some will go their separate ways, but it doesn't necessarily mean that is a bad thing...or should we be possibly settling for mediocrity? If folks no longer wish to go forward with a group due to likes/dislikes, time, finances whatever... doesn't mean they are in the wrong, doesn't mean the group they are splitting from is in the wrong either, just means they are no longer seeking the same thing from the activity/goal/desires the group was formed around in the first place...

You say : "why not figure out what is needed and do it? Why not strive to better a group or oneself as an individual?"

I dunno. Why?

I am not attempting to say I have the answers. I am just attempting to give a voice to the otherside. No one is saying the striving personally, or as a group is a bad thing. No one is saying anyone should "settle for mediocrity" - though I would hesitate to use that term myself. Am I mediocre because I can't really sew? Or because I am new and don't have 10 years of reenacting behind me? Am I mediocre because I don't have the compunction to travel far and wide terrifically often because I have other interests that also require travel from time to time? Or is that half a dozen of one, six of the other? Or none of the above?

Definitions become sticky, you see.

And an organization creating definitions for a larger community can be just as sticky. It can damage the group, it can damage the community. It can also be helpful to the group and helpful to the community. I personally feel that the biggest factor in deciding which way that particular pendulum swings is how those definitions, ideas, changes, and standards are communicated. Are people going to communicate/present as mentors or autocrats? Is language going to be geared towards understanding or towards labeling? Is education going to be offered in the spirit of personal growth or dictated as an expression of personal expertise?

I am not saying that any one person or any group of people are likely to fall on one side or the other of those question. I am merely putting the questions into the ring as having value and needing to be honestly looked at before proceeding. Just like many have said that a mistake to reenacting is rushing in inappropriately and with poor research, I am saying that rushing into creating a defined ingroup should be given just as much patience, caution and research.

[Hawkyns]

Exactly, Sterling. Groups change and hive off from each other at a regular rate. It's a common thing in other periods. A few guys in a unit will get an idea to do something else, but the unit as a whole doesn't want to. Those guys split off and form the nucleus of another unit. It's a normal part of the expansion process. Alternatively, the unit will decide to do something and a couple of people decide it's not what they want to do or its too much trouble or whatever. They will either drop out or find another unit more to their liking. This is normal evolution in most reenactment groups.

In the pyrate world it can be driven by the latest movie to come out or the latest shipwreck find. Some people change units like others change their socks. Some have been with their unit since it's inception and will be there when the nail the box shut. I'm not seeing a problem with this. To avoid improving our situation (not neccesarily our impression, but the level at which we interact with the mundane world) because some people see it as giving up freedom, seems unneccesarily self destructive.

Hawkyns

[Capt. Sterling]

Agreed Hawkyns...

and although I can certainly appreciate Jessi's concern about rushing into things... in this particular case, that wasn't the case...although some seemed quick to debunk the entire thing before even hearing it completely out..tis a new endeavor and all Dutch was looking for was suggestions...

[michaelsbagley]

Debunk? Or offering contradictory suggestion?

I know it is easy to take negative feedback as criticism, but it is just as valid to take it as showing the potential pitfalls of an endeavor.

If suggestions like this didn't go through critical analysis and contrary review they would be doomed to fail before they began. It is often the skeptics that further an idea more than the proponents.

[Capt. Sterling]

Aye but shouldn't critical analysis weigh both sides instead of just stating, sorry quote button not working, that in so many words, it just isn't going to work?

[Capt. Sterling]

So far I am not seeing suggestions on how to make it work...just a lot of nay saying and count me out...

[Hawkyns]

I also the think the 'rushing into things' comment is a bit off. This may be new in the pyrate world, but it's an old idea in the rest of the reenactment community. It may take a bit of getting used to for some who have always operated as indivdual freebooters, but it normal for those of us who have been around the block a few times. Why reinvent the wheel?

Like others, I think this is entirely dependant on what you want to do. As an individual, you may decide that you don't need any such organisation to show up at a faire or festival, wear your kit, and do whatever you do at these things. If, on the other hand, you wish to be a part of it, fire your pieces, fight others, and generally be more than a spectator in kit, the organisation would be to your benefit. If nothing else, it could provide a level of organisation and communication so that we know what specs any given venue has, and eliminate people showing up with the wrong expectations.

Hawkyns

[RedJessi]

Aye but shouldn't critical analysis weigh both sides instead of just stating, sorry quote button not working, that in so many words, it just isn't going to work?

Quote button notwithstanding, could you refer to the post you mean by it's number identification? I don't recall anyone saying patently that the idea wouldn't work, wholesale.

[hurricane]

Aye but shouldn't critical analysis weigh both sides instead of just stating, sorry quote button not working, that in so many words, it just isn't going to work?

The experience of others who have gone through it before should be invaluable and telling.

I could want to jump off a roof and try to fly under my own power but others have shown that it doesn't work.

That is our curse of knowledge -- others have indeed done things before and made all the mistakes before. I see nothing wrong with cautionary warnings from those who have been there and done that. I've been in three different non-profits and formed two others. All of them failed for the same reason - the pursuit and corruption of power and the eventual distate the worker bees have for the decision makers. I think five times tells me (and me only) something.

-- Hurricane

[hurricane]

Aye but shouldn't critical analysis weigh both sides instead of just stating, sorry quote button not working, that in so many words, it just isn't going to work?

The experience of others who have gone through it before should be invaluable and telling.

I could want to jump off a roof and try to fly under my own power but others have shown that it doesn't work.

That is our curse of knowledge -- others have indeed done things before and made all the mistakes before. I see nothing wrong with cautionary warnings from those who have been there and done that. I've been in three different non-profits and formed two others. All of them failed for the same reason - the pursuit and corruption of power and the eventual distaste the worker bees have for the decision makers. I think five times tells me (and me only) something.

Go to any Homeowner's Association and you'll see it in action every day in America. :)

-- Hurricane

Edited October 5, 2009 by hurricane

[RedJessi]

I also the think the 'rushing into things' comment is a bit off. This may be new in the pyrate world, but it's an old idea in the rest of the reenactment community. It may take a bit of getting used to for some who have always operated as indivdual freebooters, but it normal for those of us who have been around the block a few times. Why reinvent the wheel?

To the same end, why not go in gently for the people who have not been around the block a few times, so they feel less wheelbarrowed over?

[Capt. Sterling]

To the same end, why not go in gently for the people who have not been around the block a few times, so they feel less wheelbarrowed over?

The question being, why do they feel this way?

[michaelsbagley]

The question being, why do they feel this way?

Perhaps similar bad experiences as those of us who have had bad experiences in re-enactment societies in other hobby circles? Perhaps seeing too many parallels to hierarchies in the work place they prefer to avoid in their hobby time? There are likely as many reasons as there are people leaning to that side.

And I pose this question, for those who have been down that road more than once... If it worked so well for you before, why aren't you still there? I know I was drawn to re-enacting this period because of the lack of a umbrella society. I am also fairly confident that I would meet the standards of any umbrella org that was created, but too many past bad experiences would pretty much force me to decide to not join. So should someone like me potentially get pushed to the sidelines just because I won't "sign the articles"? Admittedly those who would meet standards and not want to be involved would likely be a small minority, but being outside of a society is exclusionary whether it would be intentional or not. Or is there an idea for keeping the "freebooters" in the loop? And if so, why can't the ideas that would apply to such "freebooters" be used as the norm, and leave the society for the individual groups that want such within their individual groups?