GovernanceOverall Structure and Decision MakingLost Valley Center, Inc., (LVC) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational organization.
LVC has a board of directors, which appoints and oversees the executive director. The director appoints and oversees a management
 team of department heads. These department heads hire and supervise staff and interns. The various departments include: Educational and Conference Center (which includes the Camassia Institute for Sustainable Communities and the Events department),property management/building and maintenance, finance, Land and Gardens, Kitchen, and Nature Center. As a not-for profit corporation, LVC is legally required to comply with basic governance laws as stipulated by the state of Oregon and U.S. government. These require that LVC uses a hierarchical structure of governance, with the top level of decision making belonging to a board of directors. The board members are responsible for ensuring the overall well being of the organization and that it operates with financially and legally sound practices. The board consists of a mixture of people who are residents of LV intentional community and people who live elswhere who support the LVC mission and can provide needed skills and resources for the organization. Up to 49% of the board can be employees of LVC. There is a nominations committee composed of board members and LV intentional community residents who are not on the board. People who are nominated to serve on the board must be approved by the current board to join. To be accepted to the board, nominees must show a basic understanding and commitment to uphold of the responsibilities of being a board member in a not-for-profit in Oregon, a demonstrated ability to work cooperatively with others, and effectiveness at decision making, and support the LVC mission.The board of directors uses a decision making model of consensus with a 2/3 majority vote fallback.
The department heads use various management styles within their departments, some operating with an informal consensus approach, and some operating in more of a leader and apprentice format.
The residential community is the one "department" without a department head. The community has its own decision making process, described in the community section of the website, which incorporates formal consensus. The board's policy towards the community is to support the community in using its decision making process without the board interfering, when possible. However, if needed, because of legal, fiscal, or timeline reasons, the board or the executive director have the authority to intervene in or supersede community decisions.
A Learning Organization and Nurturing Hierarchy:LVC strives for a "best of both worlds". In experimenting with different decision making forms over the years, we have observed that
 there are pros and cons to both "flat" and "hierarchical" forms. Hierarchical models often result in leaders getting stuck in ruts and not listening to important information that is coming from the people "in the trenches". Completely flat organizational models can have the opposite problem. When everyone is listened to as though every perspective is completely equal, endless meetings, with no solid decisions results. The best of both worlds approach that we are experimenting with is based on the following:- Every person is equal in terms of inherent worth as a soul. And, people generally vary greatly in their competence in different areas of the organization. Honor everyone's presence, while giving greater weight to the input that is coming from people with demonstrated competence in the area that is being decided.
- Seek input when a wide range of input could benefit the decision, but not out of fear of upsetting one or two people who like to be included in everything.
- When seeking input, use a variety of strategies that respect people's time, such as short surveys.
- Groups of 2-7 people are the size in which every individual can contribute to a discussion. If discussion is needed break the larger group into smaller groups of 2-7
people. Have very few group discussions with greater than 7 people, and especially have very few with greater than 15 people. These generally leave a lot of people feeling either useless or frustrated, and do not make the best use of people's time and abilities.
- Supported people in their learning and growth. Encourage them to take on great responsibility if they are willing to build the skills and demonstrate the competence necessary. So everyone is encouraged to become a "leader" in some area that other people acknowledge that they are good at leading, but not in anything that someone thinks they are qualified to lead, if they haven't demonstrated to others that they are capable.
- Leaders and followers and followers leaders in different circumstances. Lots of hats, let go of ego. This means that someone may be the leader of one department and then may go work with another department, and in doing so, switch "hats" to one of a humble follower. There is no inherent better worse in a healthy leader and a healthy follower role- they are both necessary, and by balancing humility and confidence, we can switch from effective leadership to effective followership back and forth many times a day. This is different than complete non-hierarchy in the sense that non-hierarchy often results in people being uncomfortable with both leadership and followership roles, and instead existing in an ennui of endless "I don't know, what do you think we should do?".
- Servant leadership. Leadership means seeing how to help people be effective in the pursuing the organizational goals. Constantly ask each other "how can I help you in these tasks? What do you need from me?"
A Very Brief History of Organizational Structure and Decision Making at LVCIn the past, LVC was managed primarily through a semi-formal consensus process of all the residents. This had benefits of residents
 learning about most aspects of LVC's operations, and learning and practicing patience and meeting skills. It also provided the hope that a non-hierarchical ultra-inclusive decision making process would empower people. In practice, it resulted in most residents feeling dissatisfied and stressed with the process. Many communities that are only residential and have a small number of people successfully practice a completely non-hierarchical consensus model of governance. However, very few service organizations or businesses have been run successfully for any extended length of time with a non-hierarchical consensus model. The primary differences are that:a. The decisions in a purely residential situation are mostly matters of opinion, whereas the decisions in running a service organization or business mostly require advanced training and technical competence. Completely non-hierarchical consensus is great at harvesting the "group wisdom", when the wisdom needed is primarily of the "common sense" and "good intentions" variety. However, when the wisdom that is needed is not common sense, but advanced knowledge in a particular trade, harvesting the opinions of a group of people without training in those areas uses a great deal of time with little discernable benefit (other than the opportunity for individuals to be heard speaking in front of other people).
b. In a purely residential environment, with consensus, the decision makers and the clients, or recipients of the decision, can be the same individuals. In a service organization or business , the primary recipients of the decisions are the future clients or customers. These clients do not have a "seat at the table" in consensus. Rather, they have a voice through client feedback forms. Therefore, staff must spend time and energy reading and responding to client feedback forms, rather than just responding to other staff. Using a large group consensus process in a service organization or a business can force staff to spend more energy trying to please all the other staff or residents, rather than focusing on pleasing the clients.
c. Completely flat consensus requires a great deal of time. In a purely residential community, that time is coming from the residents’ personal free time, and most decisions don't have strict deadlines. In a service organization or business, when people are being paid for their time, the time it takes to make decisions with large groups’ consensus can easily cost the organization more money than the outcome of that particular decision can yield. That does not make a financially sustainable organization. Additionally, in a service organization or business, very often there are serious external deadlines. If the group cannot come to a decision by these deadlines, then there are serious negative results for the organization.
SummaryOur goal is to take some of the most rewarding and effective parts of a non-hierarchical, inclusive, participatory approach, and combine them with some of the most rewarding and effective parts of hierarchical systems, while avoiding some the downfall of either approach taken to an extreme. We don’t claim to be perfect in this, but believe that we are making good strides in this process.
|
||