A public association is like a bird with one wing representing the implementation of its mission, i.e., external activity, and the other representing internal organization, i.e., a well-established and effective mechanism. Without both wings working equally, the bird will not only be unable to soar in the sky, but will simply be unable to fly.
It is very difficult, and ultimately impractical, to draw a clear line between ensuring the functioning of the association and fulfilling its mission. When conducting campaigns, setting up an office, accepting new members or staff, communicating with partners or the media, it is important to always remember that there is no action that does not directly or indirectly affect the image of your organization now or in the future.
Here are some tips that the author considers key and useful for leaders of public organizations. Most of them have been successfully tested by such associations as Green World, the Assembly of Small and Medium-Sized Business Public Organizations, the Maidan Public Council, etc.
The management of your organization, its operating algorithm, and ethical relations are, in fact, a model of your dream state. A real dream, which is embedded not even in your head, but in your subconscious, and which may not coincide with the one you publicly proclaim. If you prefer to make decisions alone, if you sincerely believe that no one in your community does anything except you and only you can effectively manage it — no matter how much you write in your founding documents and try to convince others of your democratic nature, you are in fact a potential dictator.
A common misconception in the third sector is that a democratic organization, unlike an authoritarian one, does not necessarily have to be disciplined. In reality, responsibility for one’s actions, adherence to work plans and deadlines, and the use of incentives and sanctions against performers are essential attributes not only of the Komsomol or the White Brotherhood, but also of any organization committed to achieving its goals.
Pay attention to the “worship” of the main and non-renewable resource that cannot be bought for any amount of money—time. The meeting schedule should be adhered to down to the minute; accuracy and punctuality should be a hallmark of you and your organization. The simple principle of “Every minute of delay = 1 euro to the organization’s cash register” works flawlessly.
The most effective method for creating and implementing new ideas is to delegate management authority to the authors of those ideas. Ensure that those who proposed the actions or events are the ones who manage them. Give them all the necessary powers: a position (coordinator, project manager, etc.), entrust them with drawing up plans for preparation and implementation, conducting negotiations with potential partners and sponsors, preparing and signing letters (except financial ones) from NGOs, providing assistance to the staff, etc.
You will quickly see that, on the one hand, there will be significantly fewer “bubble-space” ideas at meetings and brainstorming sessions, and on the other hand, they will become much easier and more effective to implement — you won’t have to convince anyone or explain anything. No one implements an idea better than its author.
An additional advantage of this scheme is that it significantly simplifies and makes the organization’s personnel policy more understandable and transparent—after all, people become managers not simply because of their ambition or proximity to you, but because of their initiative and successful practical work, which they have proven to the entire community.
Quite often, differences in views with leaders of other organizations create the temptation to devote all your strength and energy to fighting these movements. This should not be done. You should simply not initiate this “front,” and if it appears without your initiative, ignore it. Otherwise, this struggle will tie your hands and feet and reliably distract you from positive, constructive activities.
All of its participants will see their mission not as achieving the programmatic or tactical goals of their organizations, but as destroying their opponents, leaving no energy, time, or other resources for constructive activity or the implementation of their mission. This is especially important during the war that Ukraine is waging against the Russian Federation. War objectively contributes to the division of communities — even non-political ones — into “ours” and “not ours.”
Often, this division is artificial and based on subjective assessments or even personal dislike of a particular person. This is counterproductive and only plays into the hands of the real enemy, because the destruction of pro-Ukrainian associations will require virtually no intervention from the Russian special services. Therefore, your rule — at least at this stage — should not be “Whoever is not with us is against us!”, but “Whoever is not with them is with us!”.
By the way, about Russian special services, in particular the FSB and GRU. There is a widespread belief—which is tacitly but constantly supported by the Chekists themselves—about their omnipotence and presence wherever anti-Putin sentiment is voiced. This naturally causes concern among novice activists, who begin to restrict themselves in their actions and words. Within the organization, mistrust grows, first toward one person, then another, whom someone from among the well-wishers has confidentially described to someone else as an “FSB agent.” A vacuum is created around the person, the reason for which they do not understand. Caution is certainly necessary, but Putin’s “masters of the cloak and dagger” are not omnipotent or super-professional. Let’s just remember their amateurish failures, leaving traces of poisonous substances in the cabin of the plane with Alexander Litvinenko and in Alexei Navalny’s underwear.
Or about the murder of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev in Qatar, when local police uncovered Moscow’s “super agents” and arrested them within a few hours. In other words, I repeat, caution is necessary, but to such an extent that it does not become handcuffs that you put on yourself and that paralyze your activities. As for the “hunt for FSB agents” within protest movements, this scourge can be effectively overcome in the same way we did in the late 1980s and during both Maidans: by informing all participants in your movement that anyone who accuses someone else of being a “KGB agent” is themselves a real KGB agent, because they have access to the KGB personnel files.
And finally, one of the world’s leading experts in improving the effectiveness of citizen associations, Ichak Adizes, developed a theory according to which any organization goes through clearly defined stages of development during its lifetime.
The last of these periods between “prosperity” and “death” consolidates the cult of personality of the organization’s leader and is characterized by the following actions:
- When selecting managers for structural divisions, priority is given to past merits and achievements rather than vision for the future.
- When making decisions on important issues, interpersonal relationships within the organization take precedence over its development opportunities.
- When evaluating department heads, the ability to achieve goals and necessary results is deeply secondary compared to issues of loyalty and preservation of corporate culture.
In turn, the cult of personality surrounding a leader inevitably leads to his identification with the organization and its logical demise immediately after his death.
Let us remember this.
Pavlo Zhovnirenko, Chairman of the Board of the Center for Strategic Studies NGO
Ukraine Kyiv
