More members changes things but I feel like the leadership changes things more than the number of members. Information went from being assumed to be public to tightly controlled. Things that used to be discussed openly by anyone and shared publicly could suddenly lead to a ban for sharing. This hugely discourages participation because people assume they need permission when they really don’t.
Members used to be able to contribute in meaningful ways with great autonomy. Now even small changes require committee votes. Chairpersons have gone from highly motivated benevolent dictators to cat herders that tally votes. It takes longer to do things and the options for what’s possible have significantly narrowed. Votes at the committee level used to be very rare and were seen as a courtesy.
It seems we’ve gone from open mindedness and optimism to closed mindedness and cynicism. Now we have to vote on every little thing and the assumption is that’s better because everyone has a say. I’ve seen it both ways and I can assure you it’s not better. I think it’s why there’s tons of stuff broken and missing and nothing is being done about it. Go into the workshop and try to find a usable set of drill bits. I used to bring a lot of my own tools to the space five years ago. It got to where I didn’t have to do that because shit was together. Now it’s back to me bringing my own tools again because you never know what you’re going to get (or not get) from the toolbox. That sucks.
Committee chairperson elections are a popularity contest which doesn’t help anyone. Appoint qualified and motivated people to positions where they can have an impact. Give them autonomy. Enable them to do a good job. Get them a credit card. Make people feel like they can contribute in meaningful ways without the fear of getting banned. If someone is doing a terrible job and isn’t learning from their mistakes then give them the boot and appoint someone else. There are no terms for chairpersons so they can be changed anytime. The board should be appointing people that will be beneficial for the organization. The board of directors ins’t there to run committee elections.
A lot of the things I’m saying have been codified by others. For example Netflix.
- encourage independent decision-making by employees
- share information openly, broadly, and deliberately
- are extraordinarily candid with each other
- keep only our highly effective people
- avoid rules
They talk about some of the downsides like the fact that it’s not for everybody. Some folks aren’t cut out for it and can’t keep up with the competitive environment. The assumption we have as members is everyone is equal and anyone could step up into any position and it would be great. That isn’t reality and I think we need to come to terms with that. There are folks in the community that would make great leaders and chairpersons and there are folks that would be absolutely terrible at it. Let’s focus on how we can get the folks that would make great leaders and chairpersons to run the place. Everyone benefits from that.
As a direct answer to your question, I don’t think the issue is awareness of what’s going on (though that could be improved). The issue is deeper than that. I think the sweet spot was when we had enough money to cover things important to the members but we also had the common sense to enable the best performing people run the place. Now we’ve got more money than sense which is the opposite problem from what we’ve had in the past.