Why Unions Fail to Understand Modern Technologies
Hi, this is my first entry into the blog world. Some of you I know, some of you are new to me, but I'm happy to meet all of you.
I have been a union administrator for the last 17 years. In that time I've purchased millions of dollars of computer technology and have been a strong advocate for its use by union locals. About 10 years ago I realized that the more technology I bought, the less efficient our operations became. Worse, it was becoming an obstacle to our program implementation. Something was seriously wrong. I came to believe that our organizational culture and our values were getting in the way of using Internet and Communication Technologies effectively. We are like a fish riding a bicycle. Let me tell you a story and I apologize if it seems a bit long.
Before the 2004 election I was asked by the leadership of a large union local to help them install a new database. They were situated in a battleground state and hoped to mobilize their membership around the upcoming Presidential race. Their old database could not identify member’s legislative districts or voting history and the leadership was being pressured to fix it.
In short order a vendor was identified who could do the necessary work but required the local to obtain a broadband connection. After considering a few different options, I found a suitable broadband provider who would install a line for just over $200 a month. Satisfied with this result I went back to the union’s leadership to work out an installation timetable.
What happened next stunned me. When I met with the President and Treasurer about installing the broadband connection they flat out told me – not a chance. I didn’t know what to say. It couldn’t be the money, since $200 a month was pocket change for a local with a multi-million dollar budget. It couldn’t be the application, since knowing about each member’s party affiliation, legislative district and voting history just made the mobilization easier.
So, I asked them, what’s the problem? They told me their staff would use the connection to fool around on the Internet so they could not allow it. In their view, a faster Internet connection would undermine leadership control, which was necessary to ensure accountability and avoid chaos. Their practice was to force five or six people to share one dial-up email account. Essentially, buying broadband for the office would lead to a weakening of both discipline and organizational effectiveness.
Fortunately, this story has a happy ending because I finally convinced them to install the connection even though I had to trail along behind them talking all the way while they shopped for clothes. However, they delayed the process for months, which put them at a competitive disadvantage in a hotly contested election.
This is not an isolated example and I'm sure you all have others. Time and again, innovative ideas that have real potential for campaigns and organizing are tanked. There are several reasons for this.
First, many key players in unions believe that computer technology gets between the membership and us. All these gadgets actually undermine the face-to-face, personal relationships that are the bedrock of organizing. Second, unions are generally unhappy with the complexity and performance of computer technology. It often doesn’t work as advertised and consumes too many resources that would be better spent hiring line staff and putting “boots on the ground.” Third, unions have a sneaking suspicion that these technologies promote the cult of individualism and undermine collective action. Finally, and most importantly, creative use of these technologies appears to destabilize leadership and control at a time when strong leadership and unity are seen as crucial.
The title of this website is communicate or die but the real people we need to communicate and persuade are our leadership and fellow unionists, our members are already ahead of us. Let's face it, technologists are poor communicators and even if we were better at it, our institutions marginalize our roles.
Our current organizational structures and culture were developed in response to earlier 19th Century technologies and are not appropriate for the 21st century. In order for modern technologies to work, we need to adopt technological culture which has it's own set of values that clash with the ones labor currently has.
I welcome your views on this idea.
- Wayne Langley's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1698 reads
Welcome Wayne
Thanks for the interesting account.
One of the big reasons I set this site up was to try to bridge the gap between leaders and and technologists.
I think your overall point is basically that technology is moving us from a top down social hierarchy to a networked social hierarchy. Wondering if you could add to that and spell out exactly what differences you see between "tecnological culture" and "labor culture."
Differences
Steve you are correct, but I don't know how to explain this simply so hang on. The difference boils down to organizational models, values and technological revolution.
As I implied earlier, I think we are dealing with two very different models of organization. Lets say for discussion purposes that the difference is between bureaucratic hierarchies and what is variously called open source organization, peer-to-peer democracy or internet populism.
Labor's organizational culture is mostly in the former camp because historically they are reactive and (I think to this day) simply mimic what business does. That's why our structures often look and feel like corporations with departments and managers/workers. It wasn't always this way, but that's a separate discusion.
The open source model represents tech culture and its champions are mostly information workers and high-tech business leaders who draw their inspiration from the scientific design community rather than the worksite. From reading the literature there there is no love lost between those liking one model over the other.
I make no value judgment about either model. They both have strengths and weaknesses. I only care what works best and produces the most "value" or "efficiency" for our programs and objectives. I just happen to believe in a concept called "technological momentum" which in this case says computer technology will eventually bend social organization into it's orbit like a black hole.
The more you conform to a successful and growing tech culture, the more it "rewards" you by producing efficiencies and results you wouldn't otherwise obtain. The more you fight it, the more it "punishes" you by placing obstacles in your path. You don't need to cooperate. You can choose the bow and arrow over the repeating rifle but be prepared to accept the consequences. The truth of this dynamic is everywhere. We start wars to protect energy and electricity and my favorite example is how cell phones are affecting privacy, but more on that later.
Organizations have operating instructions that you follow in order to reasonably predict outcomes. These are the values and culture that the organization embraces and supports. In a bureaucracy, a list of typical values might be: control, security, obedience, loyalty, tradition, discipline, order, stability and secrecy.
Conversely, a list of open source values might be: creativity, individualism, innovation, flexibility, transparency, speed, initiative, risk and education. The respective cultures reinforce these values with their rules of conduct, rewards and punishment and peer socialization.
These are the differences, but both models also have similarities. They are both results oriented, believe in collective action, the necessity of leadership, and promote and enforce accountability. However, they sometimes define these things differently and take very different paths to obtain goals.
Now lets take the value of privacy as an example. Bureaucracies value privacy and it's loss is seen as a uniformly bad thing. I know of locals that don't let their staffs look at member information in their database without a written request. Now, the open source model doesn't necessarily place the same worth on privacy. The lack of privacy is defined as "transparency," a uniformly good thing. Transparency means less bullshit, smokescreens and more plain dealing which is seen as more "efficient" than hiding stuff.
New Technologies often have a very subversive (and funny) affect on values. Recently I rode the bus to work and a woman next to me was talking about her sex life on the cell phone. It made me blush and it wasn't even my sex life. She could care less that I and 10 other people were sitting next to her.
The convenience of being able to talk to her community, anywhere at anytime, meant more to her than what some stranger heard or thought. Remember, talking on the telephone was once a largely private activity. It happened at home, in phone booths (have you seen one lately - what's superman to do?), in private offices. Well, no more - wireless technology is changing all that. You can run but you can't hide. Reading about the history of the telephone by the way provides an excellent example of how new technologies change social values. Privacy will not be taken from us, we will just stop caring about it.
Control as an organizational value is another example. In a bureaucracy, control always trumps mission because control ensures stability. Control is reinforced by broadcast technologies (one to many) such as print media, radio and later television and it's no coincidence that labor loves these forms of communication. Even when they use new tech it's usually just to broadcast a message just like the old days.
From an open source perspective, stability isn't really a big concern and looks a lot more like stagnation and rot. The web works because it promotes interactivity (many to many), innovation and creativity. These values require constant change, the more frequent the better, and weak control. That's why the actions of the leadership in my broadband example looked irrational to me. Even if the staff did fool around on the Internet, it was a minor inconvience vs a major strategic advantage.
This theory has helped me understand why it is so difficult to get unions to adopt modern technologies. They see them as a threat to stability and within the logic of the model, that is a very bad thing indeed. Proponents of bureaucracies (including labor whether they like it or not) see open source values and the technologies that support them, as fuzzy, disruptive, and incapable of producing meaningful action. I argue all the time with organizing directors about whether there is or isn't a difference between offline/online organizing (I don't think there is). Bureaucracies want narrow circles of decision makers, open source wants to broaden the circle of decision makers, so on and so forth.
Let me give you another example. I had a discussion with the head of administration for a very large local. I said to him: Isn't it great that computer technology allows us to reach out and speak directly to every member? He looked staight at me and said: Why would I do that?
Once again, I was viewing the technology through one set of eyes and he another. We "saw" very different outcomes. It was like speaking different languages. I would have had a very difficult time persuading him of the utility of an interactive application because he'd see it as crazy talk.
Organizational models have life spans like people. Knowing which of the two models and their cultures are ascendant and which is descendant will determine who wins and loses in political contests. My gut feeling tells me we are backing the wrong horse. Increasingly, leadership in unions and in places like the DNC gaze upon the Republican party model with envy. Behold! A successful model of organization that wins and in one sense, they're right. A functional bureaucracy beats a dysfunctional bureacracy every time. No disrespect intended, but labors organizational structures are like reflections in a fun house mirror.
However, I believe that 1) Labor has never been very good at adopting centralized authoritarian structures because we are essentially an oppositional and anti-authoritarian bunch. So that option is out and 2) new computer technologies are increasingly undermining the foundations of the old bureaucratic model. By embracing it ever more tightly, we look like Michael Jackson doing the "moonwalk," we appear to be going foward, when we're actually going backward. So this "emulate the republicans" approach appears to be a blind alley, as I'm sure many of you realize.
I think the open source model actually capitalizes on union's historic strengths and, although this idea is very controversial, I suspect technologies like the web produce more value for democratic organizations than authoritarian ones. I have come around to thinking that democracy equals efficiency.
To be honest this whole line of open source reasoning terrifies me. I have worked in bureaucracies almost my entire adult life and giving up control is scary, like stage diving with the hope that someone will be there to catch you. It's just that the old ways don't work anymore. I am a reluctant revolutionary, I want to win more than I fear change.
Sorry for the length, I hope this makes some sense.
Great stuff
Sounds to me like you'd qualify to write a book on this stuff. Speaking of which, what you write reminds me of a book that came out a few years ago called the "Naked Corporation." Two central themes of the book are how corporations are becoming more transparent and how stakeholders (consumers, NGOs, stock holders, etc.) are having an ever increasing influence on the decisions corporations make. Though the book is about corporations, just about everything in it applies to unions. As you very rightly point out, most business unions try to mimic corporate culture.
I agree with everything you wrote. Very insightful. The $64K question is, how do we deliver these ideas and messages to union leaders? And when they do eventually get it, will it be too late?
One thing I'd like to see the Communicate or Die community do is draft a letter and send it via snail mail to the heads of the large unions in the country. The letter would have many of the ideas you have right here in this post. I wouldn't expect it to change their thinking overnight but it might at least get one or two of them thinking in the right direction.
How to Change Minds
The idea of sending a letter signed by a bi-partisan group of labor tech folks is a really good one. Hopefully, no one would get fired. Many people I know in unions and Internationals around the country feel frustrated and defeated by the system. I think coming out of the closet is a necessary step for change. I think it is our duty as trade unionists.
My current thinking on how to move leadership and staff breaks out into three areas:
1) Learn how to talk to people in terms they understand! Let's face it, half the time I talk to tech folks I don't understand what their saying. We need to become interpreters of technology for those struggling with the challenges of daily life in our locals. We need to become public speakers and missionaries spreading the word. We have to tell stories and jokes about our experiences. We need to be patient (this is tough for me).
I just finished a great book called The Evolution of Useful Things by Henry Petroski. In it he describes the difficulties inventors have in introducing or modifying new ideas. He says: "...it is the generation that is young enough not to have become so familiar with the old, and yet not so young as to be without the financial resources to do so, that usually embraces the newest technology first". It is also very funny and insightful. Did you know they guy who invented the sewing machine refused to patent it because it would throw people out of work? Very interesting.
2) We need to find concrete examples of our Ideas or make them! A great difficulty with open source theory is that it is new and untested. It pisses me off when I hear open source people asserting that there needs to be a "generational purge" before the bureaucrats wake up and smell the coffee. In labor, you screw up and people lose their jobs, their families, their future. As the Talking Heads say in Life during Wartime: this ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no fooling around.
Outside of political campaigns I've only found one example where a modified version of open source theory ran a complex operation and you wouldn't believe where. Someone handed me a flyer when I was getting on the subway a few months ago. It turned out he was a techno-christian (wonders never cease). The flyer was for a book called Joy at Work, A Revolutionary Approach to Fun on the Job. I actually shelled out $25.00 for it. I mean, who doesn't need more fun?
Anyway despite the cornball title it is a worthwhile read. The author, Dennis Bakke, is a Harvard Business School Graduate, an Evangelical Christian and, although he doesn't say this, a political libertarian in the mold of the Cato Institute and the Economist magazine. He was CEO of an Enron style energy company called AES, which had 33 billion dollars in assets, 9 billion dollars in yearly revenue and 40,000 employees in 41 countries. They privatized and ran electricity-generating plants all over the world.
When reading this book it is important to separate his politics and religion from his method. He believes you need to:
Decentralize and drive decision-making, accountability and responsibility for the success of the organization down to every single employee;
Form teams to replace departments since departments block the flow of information among staff;
The critical need for transparency in decision-making;
The elimination of "specialist" groups such as Accounting and Human Resources and replace them with worker "task forces."
Treating paid staff as if they were volunteers;
Organic, on-the-job, training models vs. traditional class based models.
The corporation ran like this for nine years, then his model collapsed with the Enron debacle but his method is almost "down-the-line" with open source thinking and with other papers I've read. See "Power to the Edges: Trends and Opportunities in Online Civic Engagement" http://www.evolvefoundation.org/
Another idea is to find some poor, struggling, underfunded organizing campaign and pile on. Joe Trippi in his book on the Dean Campaign - The Revolution Will Not be Televised, said they went virtual because they were desperate and there was no money to do anything else.
3) Change the Nature of Union Administration! I've been looking for an idea that moves conventional locals closer to open source thinking without stimulating the immune response and getting me fired.
I'm writing an article called "A New Vision of Strategic Services." The basic concept says that having "support staff" is old school. We need less secretaries and more information workers. We need less order-takers and more risk takers. Information gathering isn't the last thing we do but the first thing we do. It disputes the idea, rampant in Labor, that Administration is a cost to be minimized. In SEIU we have Organizing Directors, Political Directors, Communication Directors, directors up the wazoo. Do we have Information Officers, Regional Technical Directors, people whose job it is to capitalize on the massive investment in gadgets that unions make? Nope.
Staff are crying for help in understanding how to use this stuff productively but we have a 1950's model of administration that went out with the mimeo machine. I came into my office one day and found two young organizers hand-writing address labels for an important campaign because they couldn't work the access help menu. Be afraid, be very afraid.
By joining this forum I hope to hear from folks who have different experiences. I almost forgot. People should go to this link http://www.neworganizinginstitute.com/ MoveOn has set up an Electronic Organizing Institute which looks terrific! I've applied and become a finalist for their first class (although why they'd want an old guy like me is a mystery). Although this school is exactly what the movement needs, it is sad that labor with all of our resources didn't think of it first. Always a day late and a dollar short.
Writing a letter
You'd be interested in writing a letter and so would I. Let me float an idea out there to the rest of the community about what this letter would say. I think this sounds like a really good action this community could take collectively.
Go for it.
In for a penny, in for a pound. I like the whole "open letter" thing.
I'll post something up about it
I'll post something up and blast an e-mail out soon. It would be great to get a project that bound the members on this site together. Thanks.