ZNet Articles
ZAudios
Blog PostsMission Statement and Membership for an IOPS
By Jason Chrysostomou at Jan 23, 2011 |
|
Once we have identified all the initial requirements and discussed these issues in the forums, as a practical next step we could setup up a ‘founding OPS working group’. A message could be sent out inviting participants to join to take things further.
Two issues that I’d like to focus on (that are also relevant to discussions we are having within pps-uk right now) are:
- A Mission Statement
- Membership
1: MISSION STATEMENT
First of all, do we need a mission statement? what is the point of it? let me begin by defining what it is, and making a case for why it would be beneficial.
What is a Mission Statement?
Defined as "a formal, short, written statement of the purpose of an organization. The mission statement should guide the actions of the organization, spell out its overall goal, provide a sense of direction, and guide decision-making. It provides the framework or context within which the organisation's strategies are formulated."
Why do we need a mission statement?
From about.com:
"Because without a clear mission statement, you may drift off course. With one, you can measure every activity against it.”
“It will keep you clear-headed and out of trouble. A great mission statement is also a great branding tool. Use it to promote your organization and to help convey the essence of what you are all about."
"Essentially, your mission is your goal--your reason for being. Try answering the question, "Why did I start this organization?" The answer will be your first try at writing your mission statement. To carry out your mission, you will develop tactics and objectives. All of these will be part of your strategic plan. But first, pay attention to writing a clear, succinct, and inspiring mission statement. It will pay off in the end and keep you from wasting time and resources on non-essential activities."
To summarise the key benefits of a mission statement are:
1.) It focuses your energy and clarifies your purpose.
2.) A well-defined mission statement can and should motivate participants, supporters, and donors. It also helps attract people and resources. It is the organisation's best public relations tool.
Tips for Writing a Mission Statement
1.) Bring in many perspectives. Get lots of input from participants to develop a broad base of support. You can get this input through meetings, surveys, or phone calls.
2.) Allow enough time. Time spent now will pay off later. So, don't rush the process. Provide time to reflect on the information you gather, to write an initial draft, to allow key participants to read it, and to make changes.
3.) Be open to new ideas. This is especially important for the founders of the organization. You may have had tunnel vision while getting your organization set up, but now it is time to get some fresh perspective. Be open to different interpretations of what you should be doing and new ideas about how to accomplish your goals. Use brainstorming techniques to ensure that all ideas come forward freely. You can winnow them down later.
4.) Write short and only what you need. The best mission statements are short and state the obvious. Your statement's length and complexity depends on what your organization wants to do, but keep it as brief as possible. You should be able to use the statement frequently, so make it brief and succinct. As Tony Ponderis of the Fund-Raising Forum says, the mission statement should be "...short enough to remember and easily communicate. Strong enough to inspire."
5.) Review your mission statement frequently. The American Heart Association, for instance, reviews its mission statement every third year, but it is changed only every few decades. Cass Wheeler, long-time CEO of the American Heart Association, says in his book, You've Gotta Have Heart: Achieving Purpose Beyond Profit in the Social Sector,"The environment changes and the organization changes, so a periodic review is important to ensure that there is alignment of purpose and reality."
example mission statements: http://nonprofit.about.com/od/nonprofitbasics/a/mission_2.htm
What should we include in an IOPS mission statement?
What do others think of the IOPS mission statement that has been initially drafted on the IOPS group page (find it on the left menu)?
Also, the OFS group in New York have a ‘points of unity’ statement members need to agree to that would also be useful to look at: http://www.afreesociety.org/points-of-unity/
I think the IOPS mission statement should be broken down into some categories. for example:
1.) Summary Introduction (useful for a quick explanation of what the organisation is about)
2.) Background of the Organisation
3.) Purpose and aims of the organization
4.) Visionary beliefs: Polity, Economy, Kinship, Culture, Ecological, International Relations, 5.) Broad Strategy
6.) Broad Action Agenda
2: MEMBERSHIP
To be a serious organisation that is effective with dedicated and informed members, we need to think about what rights and responsibilities a participant of the organisation should have and what the different types of ways individuals or other groups wanting to get involved with the organisation could be.
It is also necessary to identify who has voting rights before moving on to issues such as decision making procedures and finances.
Some issues to consider:
agree to all of the mission statement, or a certain majority of it, or a core part of it
pay dues: based on income level?
activity level? required to join a local chapter and take part in a certain amount of meetings? or if no local chapter exists to initiate a virtual local chapter themselves to give visibility until others join and the chapter becomes active (perhaps a minimum of 3 people qualifies as an active chapter?)
other possible criteria to consider are admission interview, mentoring, etc.
members get full voting rights.
Involvement with the organisation could include different categories:
member
supporter
donator
Re: Mission Statement and Membership for an IOPS
By Evans, Mark at Jan 31, 2011 18:08 PM
Regarding the issue of different categories for membership, do you think it would be helpful if new members were given options to choose from when signing-up? Do you think this should be an additional features that could be added to the IOPS group page?
“Donors” might be members who want or can only make a financial contribution to IOPS.
“Supporters” might be members who also want to make a financial contribution but also can / want to help with organising whilst finding out more about participatory vision and strategy.
“Organisers” might be members who make a financial contribution and lead on organising events, fund raising, education etc. These are people who have demonstrated an understanding and commitment to participatory vision and strategy witnessed by the content on their ZSpace.
So that is the responsibilities and I Im thinking that it should only be the organisers who have voting rights. What do people think?
Regarding a mission statement, it could be argued that IOPS already has one - see IOPS Definition and IOPS Statement.
Nevertheless, you argue that we need one “Because without a clear mission statement, you may drift off course. With one, you can measure every activity against it.”
To my mind this is the function of our vision. It seems to me that our vision serves the same function as a mission statement.
That is not to say that I am against the idea. There may be very good reasons to make our vision and strategy more explicit in a mission statement. It may be a good way to better ensure that IOPS members understand what they are signing up to. Like Anders I think that the OFS “Points of Unity” is a good example of this.
Perhaps you will “Propose a Change” to the existing IOPS Statement using the facility on the group page?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Mission Statement and Membership for an IOPS
By Chrysostomou, Jason at Feb 03, 2011 10:53 AM
Regarding the issue of different categories for membership, do you think it would be helpful if new members were given options to choose from when signing-up? Do you think this should be an additional features that could be added to the IOPS group page?
Yes, I think that someone should have an option to choose what level of involvement they wish to have with an IOPS. However, my understanding is that the 'people for an IOPS' group is for discussing the establishment of an IOPS so these issues/proposals are meant to be implemented for when or if we launch such an organisation.
"A ZGroup of people who want to help develop and create and eventually be part of local, national, and international Organization for a Participatory Society - including fledgling chapters"
“Donors” might be members who want or can only make a financial contribution to IOPS.
“Supporters” might be members who also want to make a financial contribution but also can / want to help with organising whilst finding out more about participatory vision and strategy.
“Organisers” might be members who make a financial contribution and lead on organising events, fund raising, education etc. These are people who have demonstrated an understanding and commitment to participatory vision and strategy witnessed by the content on their ZSpace.
these are roughly the different categories I was thinking. Perhaps also add "Affiliate Group" for organisations that wish to show support and connect with us. We would have to think carefully about organiser responsibilities to get the balance right such such as what requirement of level of knoledge or activity organisers would need to have and how that would be measured.
So that is the responsibilities and I Im thinking that it should only be the organisers who have voting rights. What do people think?
I also think only organisers should get a voting right.
Regarding a mission statement, it could be argued that IOPS already has one - see IOPS Definition and IOPS Statement.
Yes it is an initial version but I think, even though there is currently the option of members suggesting changes to it, it requires more serious attention and assesment by everyone in the group. aaND And we would need to add some further documents that outline membership rights and responsibilites also. See below for my suggested action point.
Nevertheless, you argue that we need one “Because without a clear mission statement, you may drift off course. With one, you can measure every activity against it.”
To my mind this is the function of our vision. It seems to me that our vision serves the same function as a mission statement.
yes I agree and the set of shared visionary beliefs should be a large part of the mission statement such as in the current version. And even more important considering we are a group who want to organise around advocating institutional features , not just rejecting current ones.
That is not to say that I am against the idea. There may be very good reasons to make our vision and strategy more explicit in a mission statement. It may be a good way to better ensure that IOPS members understand what they are signing up to. Like Anders I think that the OFS “Points of Unity” is a good example of this.
Perhaps you will “Propose a Change” to the existing IOPS Statement using the facility on the group page?
What I am proposing as an action point rather is that we form a working group with the purpose of a.) identifying what core documents we need (e.g. mission statement, membership rights and responsibilities, etc.) and b.) pro-actively seeking input by participants to contribute in assessing and developing these documents.
For example, all the groups in Europe, including ppsuk, sweden, finland, spain, etc, could actively turn their attention towards these activities and a contact from each group could be part of this working group.
My thinking is that say we have a set of documents that have been collaboratively developed and ratified at this stage then it would lay the foundation for any individuals or small groups to setup a local chapter being part of the IOPS and agreeing to the core documents. There could be startup membership packs and core literature, etc.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Mission Statement and Membership for an IOPS
By Evans, Mark at Feb 04, 2011 01:02 AM
If you can drum up enough interest and comitment from members then I think the working group would be great. We would need to involve members from as many different parts of the world as possible though and not just Europe. The people in South Africa are good and the OFS people could make an important contribution. Perhaps there are other isolated individuals from other parts of the world who might also like to join the working group if it were formed.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Mission Statement and Membership for an IOPS
By Chrysostomou, Jason at Feb 04, 2011 10:41 AM
Reply this comment
By Sandstrom, Anders at Jan 30, 2011 10:56 AM
here are my initial thoughts:
Mission statements:
There should definitely be a mission statement. I feel no need to add anything to the reasons stated above. They are quite sufficient. Both the IOPS mission statement and OFS ‘points of unity’ are good examples and can be a starting point for a discussion within the group.
About membership:
Personally I like a solution with different categories of involvement, where a membership comes with rather well defined rights and responsibilities regarding agreements on statement, paying dues, voting rights and so on, and with the alternative of choosing a less demanding category of supporter/donator for people not yet ready to take on the responsibilities of a membership but still wants to support the efforts.
In my opinion one should demand that a potential member agrees with all of the mission statement. Anything less will open up for interpretations and unnecessary discussions.
Anyone agreeing with the mission statement and the other requirements that come with a membership should be allowed as a member. There should on the other hand be clear rules about when a member has forfeited his/her membership and on what grounds he/she can be excluded.
The principle of dues in accordance to income level seems fine to me.
A required activity level is somewhat controversial in an early stage, in my view. The reason for this is that people have different opportunities to participate due to different working hours, family situations and so on. In case of a requirement of a certain activity level there would have to be highest possible effort made to make it possible for everybody to participate. This is a really difficult question.
Anders Sandström
Parecon - Sverige
Reply this comment
Re:
By Chrysostomou, Jason at Feb 03, 2011 11:04 AM
We appear to be in agreement with most of the issues.
The requirement on activity level is a tricky one and we need to really think about this to get the balance right. I kind of feel that we should have some kind of requirement so that there is a sense of seriousness about the organisation, but of course it cannot be too demanding for the reasons you suggest.
Perhaps just stating that members are expected to attend meetings is enough and that if someone hasnt attended for a certain period, and has no extenuating circumstances, then chapter members can suspend their membership.
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By Marty, David at Feb 04, 2011 13:27 PM
Glad to catch up on this interesting chat. I have read Jason's statement and all of your comments. Here is what my thoughts are:
First of all we pretty much agree on everything regarding Mission Statements. This is a topic that Jason and I have discussed on previous email exchanges - together with other members of PPS Europe - so you already know my position. I hear Mark's argument that a Mission Statement (from now on MS) and vision are hard to tell apart. However, I don't think it should be any issue. My understanding is that the difference between a MS and vision lies in the question asked earlier by Jason and Anders: What is the least we need members to agree on? The answer to that question gives us the MS. This is why it must be succintly written and clear. How we complete it and then eventually implement it and shape it will constitute our vision. So, to me, a MS is like the structure of the house, and a vision that is going to take shape as we discuss it is everything else that makes that house ready for all of us to move into. This has been the opinion of some of you, so I feel that there is no big disagreement of what a MS ought to be, is it?
Second of all, I feel that an founding text - whatever its place in our internal hierarchy of norms (sorry for sounding like a boring lawyer...) - should always deal with a certain mechanism for resolving disputes. The question has been raised partially by some of you in this chat but has been essentially overlooked, in my view, when dealing with founding texts. Indeed, there has to be clear rules as to what happens when things go wrong. A clear MS should help us stay on the right track, and that has been very well put by Jason in his statement here. But my opinion is that a clear MS should also give us some direction as to what to do when things don't go as planned.
Indeed, this is like what happens between newly weds and prenups: no one wants to think of divorce on the day that love is celebrated. But when things take an unwanted course, you are sure glad to have one.
The termination of membership is one issue, and an important one. But there are other issues that one can think of. If you have a bit of a perverse imagination, I'm sure you could come up with 3-4 bad situations on the spot, some that would require some dispute resolving mechanism. Any successful historical libertarian movement has had one. And the reason why I bring this up here in this duscussion about MS is because this is the perfect timing to deal with it. Otherwise when dispute arise, acting on it will inevitably look as if you're either being authoritarian, or that you're taking sides and making custom-made rules.
Let me know if you find this relevant and why. I would like to hear your opinion on this.
Cheers!
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By Chrysostomou, Jason at Feb 06, 2011 09:40 AM
lets add it to the list. so far we have:
1.) mission statement (including: purpose, visionary beliefs, broad strategy, broad action agenda)
2.) membership rights and responsibilities
3.) dispute resolving procedures
4.) decision making and general structure
anything else that people think is needed?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Regarding membership
By Allen, Matt at Feb 19, 2011 20:13 PM
Am I right in thinking IOPS would be a federation/group/organisation/network of local/national chapters?
I think I am...
In that case I think actual voting membership should be restricted to actual functioning chapters. These could be national (certainly in smaller nations, or nations with large national memberships), or local say in the case of vast or unevenly spread nations for example the US where maybe a New York based chapter may want to affilate but a wider grouping (like OFS?) chooses not to for whatever reason maybe temporarily or permanantly.
You should allocate each chapter a number of delegate positions, according to size, with a fairly low upper limit to prevent dominance by massive chapters (although this could be revised upwards as the average chapter size and number of chapters increases), and maybe charge an affiliation fee based on the size of the chapter (again with a lower and upper limit, and weighting towards developed world nations).
In areas where there are insufficient people to form a chapter they should be accepted as supporters, with the right to particpate in internal discussions, and recieve support towards setting up chapters. I would suggest that supporter status should be free, while encouraging donations from them. All supporters should have the right to vote in indicative polls on major decisions effecting the IOPS as a whole of course, with the understanding that their votes are not binding on the organisation but that the chapters will consider them.
The reason for restricting voting power to chapters is that it simplifies the membership structures and entrenches the right of decision making to real functioning groups. While creating the supporter status shows that you want to facilitate the building of chapters across the world.
Reply this comment