Consolidation and Democracy
John T Brinkmann
Description
Collection
Title:
Consolidation and Democracy
Creator:
John T Brinkmann
Date:
7/26/1999
Text:
This came back undelivered - I'll try it again. Sorry if it is a repeat.
7/25/99
Reed, Mike, John, et al:
>Being able to remove your board hat is just what
>keeps this country going, and advancing.
>your fiduciary responsibility is to the members of an organization
>that ELECTED you to that position. It is your responsibility to voice
>your opinion, after all, Why were you elected? To agree with the
>majority or what was fashionable? I think not. You were elected
because the
>masses had faith in you to represent them and their concerns. We
>felt your opinions were, (and still are), important.
I have been observing this discussion with some interest, since it
involves not only the specific question of consolidation, but also a
smattering of the philosophy of representative government. I am not an
expert in either area (the consolidation question or representative
democracies), but I have had some experience as part of a leadership
board. The answer to the question of how much a Board member should say
about his/her disagreements with a Board decision is not a black/white
one, in my opinion. Treating it as such does not give Board members
credit for the difficult and conflicted position they may be in.
My expectation of those in leadership in our profession is that they
would have open, honest, respectul and candid debate of any issue in the
privacy of the boardroom. It is during this more private exchange that I
would expect those who represent my views to express themselves in depth,
and be heard, as well as listen to the other side. (OCCASIONALLY, my
views, and the views of those who represent me, are not 100% right!)
Once a decision has been reached by the board, I would not consider it
professional or wise (from a leadership standpoint) for each board member
to express their agrement or disagreement in detail with members of the
organizations. Those who represent my views, represent them, after all,
as part of a board. They are individuals, but part of a leadership group
that must at some point agree to pull the load together - even if it is
not exactly where they would go were they going alone.
It is my observation that organizational behavior follows some typical
patterns. Often it is the loudest voices who get the bull horns. Way
too often group think dominates, discouraging those with the minority
(or quieter) voice to be intimidated out of participating in real debate.
If this is happening on the Boards (and I have no idea if it is) then
this issue needs to be made the topic of public discussion (as has been
already suggested.)
The question of consolidation is one that will impact the future of our
profession much more significantly than many of the decisions that the
Boards make. I believe that membership should be informed if the
decision-making process at the Board level is a faulty one. If Board
members have been intimidated into supporting a decision, shame on them
for being intimidated; and double shame on them for not making membership
aware that the process is tainted.
If the situation is merely that the Boards support a decision that not
each and every member on those Boards personally agrees with, then I am
not very concerned. I consider that a normal part of being a Board
member.
The questions I have regarding the consolidation issue are these:
1) Has there been open, honest, candid, and respectful discussion at the
Board level of the pros and cons of this question? If the answer is
no, then the consolidation question is a moot one, and the real issue
to be discussed is how the Boards operate. If it is yes, then
membership needs to very seriously consider the official position.
2) Can each Board member explain the position to which they are opposed,
to the satisfaction of those who hold that position? If the answer is
no, the the debate has not been informed and productive - someone isn't
listening.
3) Will the decision to consolidate or not consolidate result in any
unethical, illegal, or immoral practices at the national office level?
Will either decision signal the end of quality leadership in P/O? If
no, then keep perspective - chances are that the provision of P/O
services will change little whether the Boards consolidate or not. (I've
already stated that this is a significant decision, so I'm not being
flippant about this.)
4) To those of us who are not on any of the Boards or committees: Are
the concerns we have due to a lack of familiarity with the issues at
hand?
In connection with this: Much of the input I read and hear from other
members (on many issues, not just the big C) reflects a gross
ignorance of what is actually going on at the national level. Often, a
brief, respectful response from a member of the national office or one
of the Boards easily clarifies the issue. I certainly don't claim to
know what is happening at that level, which is why I try to keep my tone
generally inquisitive, rather than condeming. (Perhaps more of our
communication to the leadership should end with question marks, rather
than exclamation points.)
As hard as it is for those in leadership to balance their personal
convictions with their responsibility (fiduciary or otherwise) to support
the decision of the Boards, it is even harder to do so in an enviornment
of harsh (and often ignorant) criticism.
I have very little respect for leaders who impose their vision forcefully
on followers, and even less respect for those who allow a vision to be
forced on them. My highest disregard is reserved for those whose
participation in the whole process is limited to criticism of the course
of action that the leadership body takes. (The man who rows the boat
usually doesn't have time to rock it.)
5) To those who support consolidation: What are the three most
significant reasons that you support consolidation? (Nutshell, here.)
6) To those who oppose consolidation: What are the three most
significant reasons that you oppose consolidation? (Again, the nutshell
version.)
It may be best to respond to 5 and 6 personally, rather than to the list
serve - use your judgement. Thanks for the discussion so far...
Sincerely:
John T. Brinkmann, CPO
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: <URL Redacted>.
7/25/99
Reed, Mike, John, et al:
>Being able to remove your board hat is just what
>keeps this country going, and advancing.
>your fiduciary responsibility is to the members of an organization
>that ELECTED you to that position. It is your responsibility to voice
>your opinion, after all, Why were you elected? To agree with the
>majority or what was fashionable? I think not. You were elected
because the
>masses had faith in you to represent them and their concerns. We
>felt your opinions were, (and still are), important.
I have been observing this discussion with some interest, since it
involves not only the specific question of consolidation, but also a
smattering of the philosophy of representative government. I am not an
expert in either area (the consolidation question or representative
democracies), but I have had some experience as part of a leadership
board. The answer to the question of how much a Board member should say
about his/her disagreements with a Board decision is not a black/white
one, in my opinion. Treating it as such does not give Board members
credit for the difficult and conflicted position they may be in.
My expectation of those in leadership in our profession is that they
would have open, honest, respectul and candid debate of any issue in the
privacy of the boardroom. It is during this more private exchange that I
would expect those who represent my views to express themselves in depth,
and be heard, as well as listen to the other side. (OCCASIONALLY, my
views, and the views of those who represent me, are not 100% right!)
Once a decision has been reached by the board, I would not consider it
professional or wise (from a leadership standpoint) for each board member
to express their agrement or disagreement in detail with members of the
organizations. Those who represent my views, represent them, after all,
as part of a board. They are individuals, but part of a leadership group
that must at some point agree to pull the load together - even if it is
not exactly where they would go were they going alone.
It is my observation that organizational behavior follows some typical
patterns. Often it is the loudest voices who get the bull horns. Way
too often group think dominates, discouraging those with the minority
(or quieter) voice to be intimidated out of participating in real debate.
If this is happening on the Boards (and I have no idea if it is) then
this issue needs to be made the topic of public discussion (as has been
already suggested.)
The question of consolidation is one that will impact the future of our
profession much more significantly than many of the decisions that the
Boards make. I believe that membership should be informed if the
decision-making process at the Board level is a faulty one. If Board
members have been intimidated into supporting a decision, shame on them
for being intimidated; and double shame on them for not making membership
aware that the process is tainted.
If the situation is merely that the Boards support a decision that not
each and every member on those Boards personally agrees with, then I am
not very concerned. I consider that a normal part of being a Board
member.
The questions I have regarding the consolidation issue are these:
1) Has there been open, honest, candid, and respectful discussion at the
Board level of the pros and cons of this question? If the answer is
no, then the consolidation question is a moot one, and the real issue
to be discussed is how the Boards operate. If it is yes, then
membership needs to very seriously consider the official position.
2) Can each Board member explain the position to which they are opposed,
to the satisfaction of those who hold that position? If the answer is
no, the the debate has not been informed and productive - someone isn't
listening.
3) Will the decision to consolidate or not consolidate result in any
unethical, illegal, or immoral practices at the national office level?
Will either decision signal the end of quality leadership in P/O? If
no, then keep perspective - chances are that the provision of P/O
services will change little whether the Boards consolidate or not. (I've
already stated that this is a significant decision, so I'm not being
flippant about this.)
4) To those of us who are not on any of the Boards or committees: Are
the concerns we have due to a lack of familiarity with the issues at
hand?
In connection with this: Much of the input I read and hear from other
members (on many issues, not just the big C) reflects a gross
ignorance of what is actually going on at the national level. Often, a
brief, respectful response from a member of the national office or one
of the Boards easily clarifies the issue. I certainly don't claim to
know what is happening at that level, which is why I try to keep my tone
generally inquisitive, rather than condeming. (Perhaps more of our
communication to the leadership should end with question marks, rather
than exclamation points.)
As hard as it is for those in leadership to balance their personal
convictions with their responsibility (fiduciary or otherwise) to support
the decision of the Boards, it is even harder to do so in an enviornment
of harsh (and often ignorant) criticism.
I have very little respect for leaders who impose their vision forcefully
on followers, and even less respect for those who allow a vision to be
forced on them. My highest disregard is reserved for those whose
participation in the whole process is limited to criticism of the course
of action that the leadership body takes. (The man who rows the boat
usually doesn't have time to rock it.)
5) To those who support consolidation: What are the three most
significant reasons that you support consolidation? (Nutshell, here.)
6) To those who oppose consolidation: What are the three most
significant reasons that you oppose consolidation? (Again, the nutshell
version.)
It may be best to respond to 5 and 6 personally, rather than to the list
serve - use your judgement. Thanks for the discussion so far...
Sincerely:
John T. Brinkmann, CPO
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: <URL Redacted>.
Citation
John T Brinkmann, “Consolidation and Democracy,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 8, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212003.
