(This post was originally published in 2010 and events have shown that a central organization has not been needed for practitioner success)
I think this is an entirely proper questions to ask ourselves as we approach the tipping point where more people will choose to become independent than endure the suppression that comes with being a cult member.
Why have a central organization unless it can provide a service that individual practitioners can’t do alone?
I listed out a few major functions that exist in the CofS today and tried to assign responsibility to fit the needs of the independent field. I created the following table and endeavored to fill in the blanks. After one pass, a pattern seemed to emerge that indicated a strong central organization was unnecessary.
Take a look at this table and see what you think:
(A project team is formed by individual practitioners working remotely.)
FUNCTION CENTRALIZED LOCALIZED
Public Relations by a project team By Practitioner
Legal Rudiments Advisory team Practitioner
Technical Research Project team Practitioners
Organizational research Project team Sign off by practitioners
Legal Threats Project team supported by Practitioners
Best practices Project team sign off by practitioners
Handling Complaints advisory group Practitioners
Auditor Certification project teams Apprenticing
Qual Functions Regional resources Practitioners
Network coordination Regional reps
Practice organization advisory group Practitioners
Pricing of services advisory group Practitioner
After taking a few swings at the idea of organizing the field, I saw a pattern emerging for me anyway.
Any central function should be performed by teams made up of networked individuals. I see little need for a central organization with a large permanent staff. Web video conferences are easy to organize and provide face-to-face contact for people working on projects together.
The project teams are remotely based and consist of individual practitioners or family members who work on specific projects via web-based meetings and email. Project leaders are elected, as are project secretaries. All work is done by individual practitioners or their delegates.
Who pays them? Who pays people who work on Linux or any of a dozen open source projects. They volunteer to serve because they need something that they cannot produce alone. They also get credit for working on the final product and they get to steer the development in a direction that makes sense to their organization or themselves.
The way we will probably develop this organization is by using an organic model. A problem will arise and a few people will team up to handle the problem and disseminate the results. They will immediately become the go-to guys for handling the fallout from handling the problem and after a few iterations, they will become a standing committee to deal with the same or similar problems.
If the product of the team effort is something that can be exchanged for money, it is easy to set up a PayPal donation button to cover the expenses of producing and shipping the product whether it is a downloadable file or a booklet or a package of handy forms.
If the product does not require a team effort, I would expect that the practitioner who develops a product for other practitioners will market it himself. Of course, the practitioner might also license the central org to market and distribute his product and get royalties without taking himself off production lines.
As the independent field grows, there will be a growing demand for new meters, distance auditing accessories, and technical documentation. There are plenty of independents who can handle the manufacture and distribution of these items and who are not auditors. I think there are many auditors who will wish to continue auditing and are willing to have others help them make money by selling the products they have developed.
I can also see business people in the independent field being willing to partner up with auditors so that the products they manufacture and sell have the approval and support of working practitioners.
Note that these last examples do not require a central organization but they will eventually cause a central organization to form as business people tend to form national organizations by teaming up with competitors to control and stabilize growing markets and to ward off government interference.
The bottom line is that there is no place for a central organization unless it can carry its weight by helping individual practitioners make money.
DM has never run a business so he does not understand the vital necessity of keeping that exchange in. The CofS Int Management core talks of booming the church, but every action cannibalizes the individual orgs and drives their stats down and penalizes producing staff.
A central organization that becomes a burden on the actively producing parts of the organization will eventually be overthrown.
If we have a central organization, it must remain lean and mean and act in a way that makes it absolutely essential to the growth of individual practitioners.
Over to you…Number of views:18694