After a bit of a debate with myself, I am calling this next
function coordinating. The context of
this debate is that I am in the midst of presenting through a set of postings a
list of functions that I believe are useful to educators who want students to look
at political activity from the perspective of groups. Groups are, of course, collections of
individuals who come together for a purpose.
Groups vary in importance, duration, formality, cohesiveness, and
purpose. All groups also vary in the
matter of their health – how likely they are to be viable and to overcome any
existing forces that might present the group obstacles or, even more ominous,
dangers. Experience tells us that any
group we might have belonged to was concerned with these forces. Take the experience that belonging to a
family provides.
Over the years, families face many negative situations: losing a job, being uprooted due to work or
family challenges, partaking in infidelity, rebelling children, on and on. We are told that most divorces are caused by
financial problems. In addition, our
defining marriage as a contract as opposed to a covenant or compact has added
to the disruptive forces facing families.
In order for a family to be viable, to be healthy, it needs to do
certain things and if we analyze across groups, we can identify a list of
activity types, functional behaviors, which increase the likelihood of a group
succeeding.
My list is a set of functions that political groups need to
fulfill to some degree in order to be healthy.
Given that just about all groups have a political function, we can
extend these functions beyond those groups whose primary reason for existence is
political. The other proviso is to point
out that my list applies to a range of groups from those who are highly
informal to those that are institutionalized and integral to our political
landscape.[1] My last few postings have identified the
following functions: producing,
adapting, sophisticating, and liberating.
This posting will describe the function, coordinating.
I also debated about whether to call this function organizing
or coordinating. Since my functions are
aimed at promoting successful federated groups, my choice of coordinating
hopefully denotes a higher degree of interactivity between members, an interactivity
that has a level of esprit and unity not captured by the term organizing. Hence, I chose coordinating in the hope that
it more closely describes a sense of partnership which is what a federation
is. Not only does such a group have a
formal structure as exists in organizations, but an emotional commitment that
exudes palpable loyalty. This level of
cohesion does not necessarily depend on friendship, although friendship could
be helpful, but it does demand respect for each other – a respect of each
member’s humanity and his or her role within the group. If this function is met, a whole array of
activities will not only be tolerated, but also be sought after. Discussions and disagreements are seen as
opportunities for improvement, not triggers for dissolution or other
counterproductive actions. In order for
this to work, a federated group has to have a significant amount of trust among
the membership. This latter quality is
not easily attained and it shouldn’t be.
Trust in a federated group should be seen as something that needs to be
earned and not taken for granted – although at times it needs to be assumed.
All of this, of course, does not preclude the needs of all
organizations. Federated associations
need a formal structure, well-defined authority relations, and all the physical
resources necessary to fulfill their purposes.
But a difference that distinguishes federated associations is the bias
they have for more horizontal power arrangements. This feature is not born from trying to be trendy,
but from a sincere attachment to an ideal of having each member contribute to
the policy-making processes of the group.
Of course, this desire needs to be tempered by practical concerns, which
includes needs for expertise and other technical and physical
requirements. But it does require that
all of its, at least, participating members believe in and interpret
sufficiently similarly the foundational ideals and principles of the group.
A teacher who wants his/her students to study a group and
determine whether the group is meeting this function of coordinating might ask
some or all of the following questions:
Does the group have clear lines of authority?
Does the group have a sufficient array of skills among its
members to viably engage in activities that are meant to accomplish its
purposes?
Does the group have problem-solving protocols that meet the
challenges of the group’s internal and external environment?
Does the group encourage broad participation among its
members in the established problem-solving protocols?
Do the members have a clear understanding of their individual
roles and expectations? Do they
individually and collectively judge these roles and expectations as legitimate and
proper?
Can you add to this list?
[1]
I see groups ranging from haphazard gatherings
to very important and essential collections of important people. The progression goes something like
this: gathering, group, organization,
association, institution. An association
is an organization that is made up of federated individuals or groups. I don’t particularly like the term
institution. I like to reserve that term
to identify established ways of doing things.
Since institutions – as I am defining them – rely on very healthy
groups, the term institution – as a group – can be used reservedly.
