I read the “Evolution not Revolution” article by the CEO of the RPRA. Part of me was bemused at the tone and language used as it reminded me of the Back to the Future films, with the characters who couldn’t grasp the reality of modern life. And part of me was sad, angry and disillusioned that in the 21st century of a modern country such as the UK there are such archaic views and attitudes towards necessary change coming from the top.
The entire article lacks clarity and coherence, it reads like a tirade of emotions, why the new plans are not good and why the good ol’ days are here to stay. There is no evidence to counteract the proposals. Like none, zero. Zilch, you get the idea.
And here are some quotes for you: “workload would be tremendous”, “most of their time would be taken up with a tremendous amount of administrative work”, “the obvious requirement of very lengthy meetings”. It sounds so heavy, doesn’t it?
It goes further: “they are designed to do away with the region and council structure and replace them with an Executive Committee of just five members.”. Just five members.
These are the comments of someone who simply doesn’t understand the principles of a sound governance system, whereby the executives in charge would have responsibility for their areas of expertise and would be held accountable by their fellow members of the committee. They would be responsible to lead, streamline and control the activities underneath them in such a way that only escalations should be sent to the Committee. So it’s not about “just five members”.
In any enterprise, the CEO and members of the Executive Committee are required to have expertise, experience and qualifications in the area they oversee. This is how a modern, 21st Century enterprise is being run. Including having risk owners, controls and accountability in place.
The new proposals were aimed at streamlining the entire structure, taking advantage of modern technology, such as bank payments (not cheques or postal orders that are still being requested by the RPRA), use of emails, computers etc. So then those tasks that he laments about taking a lot of time, such as “the collection of subscriptions and updating memberships” can be a quick task and not one that takes 15 minutes on a phone to sort out if there are queries (I wonder where are the stats for all these calls and queries reported and what is being done to streamline these and improve the process, learn the lessons so that time is not actually wasted like this – oh this is a 21st century technique of management. We don’t do those.
Another reason that the CEO provided against these annoying proposals is that “realistically most of our current members are those who dislike new technology especially computers, and are not able to use them with confidence”. How many of you have taken part into a RPRA survey asking you whether you “dislike new technology especially computers”? How was it concluded that “most of our members” dislike computers when there is no evidence of numbers? Answers on a postcard.
To be clear, the new proposals didn’t ask the members to use Snapchat, Tiktok or other such outlandish apps. No, just the good ol’ email that’s been around at least 30 years.
And one last bone to pick here is the democracy. The word ‘democratic’ is being used three times in the last paragraph. As if the new proposals would shatter the very foundation of democracy. That’s heavy, isn’t it? To be clear, an executive committee is also very democratic. It’s the basis of sound governance.
It is very clear that the new proposals were not testing the democracy of the institution. The challenge was about the fitness of a business model stuck in the 80s, together with the mentalities of those in charge, from the top to bottom and bottom to top (whatever you prefer).
That same dated mentality which denied membership to a club to a 10 year old girl because of fear that actually it was her dad and grandad who wanted to join ‘via a back door’. Yes, that’s an 80s response from an institution with an 80s structure and leadership who have opposed the implementation of a 21st century enterprise management and governance structure because computer says ‘no’. Well not actually the computer. Because they don’t use one.