The elusive brow of the hill

June 23, 2009 by
Filed under: The RSA 

When talking to people about organisational change I use a cycling metaphor. The first phase is like riding up a hill into a fierce wind. It’s tough. If you don’t keep pedalling hard you find you have stopped moving or may even be sliding back downhill. Then there comes the brow of the hill and you enter an exhilarating time when change is happening effortlessly. The temptation in this phase is to freewheel down into the next valley; if you want to keep improving you have to use some of the downward momentum to start the next climb.

The first two years at the RSA certainly did feel like an uphill struggle. Important progress was made but it was slow and exhausting. There were times we had to stop pedalling. The best we could do was plod uphill pushing the bike.

2009 was the year things were supposed to change, the moment when we could stop pedalling, sit back in the saddle, admiring the view and feeling the wind in our hair. But just like happens in walking or cycling in the mountains, it turned out the peak we were aiming for had another one hidden behind.  

We have been challenged by two reviews being undertaken by consultants; one on technology and one on our brand and communication. These reviews have suggested that the reason we are still finding change so tough is that we haven’t fully confronted some core dilemmas for the Society. Here are three in particular which have emerged:

• We need the House to make money so that maintaining the building isn’t a drain on our resources, but we also need the House to speak much more directly to the values and mission of the RSA.

• We want to have profile but we eschew the positioning that tends to give other organisations profile. We want to range widely, to be nuanced in our analysis and recommendations and, above all, to focus not on who to blame for problems (which, sadly, is the angle that tends to interest the media the most) but how to empower people to change.

• We want to have an impact on society but we also want to work closely with our Fellows. Because the Fellowship culture has not generally in the past been collaborative or outward looking, we are having to put in a great deal of work which is as yet reaping only modest returns in terms of Fellowship activities.

None of these dilemmas are irresolvable but they can’t just be overcome through aspiration and perspiration. We need to be brave in seeing that there are some hard choices here; we are going to have drop some luggage and maybe sometimes take a slower, less steep route if we are not going to end up lying exhausted by the side of the road.

It’s unusual I know for a chief executive publicly to open up these sorts of issues. At the heart of my continuing belief in the potential of the RSA is that it is that what makes change hard (the combination of our activities as a venue, a platform for ideas, a think tank and membership organisation) can one day be what makes us special.

So, I hope it’s won’t just be senior managers, nor even just staff members, but also our Fellows and those who partner with us who feel interested and engaged in the challenge we have set for ourselves.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: ,

Comments

9 Comments on The elusive brow of the hill

  1. Sam Holmes on Tue, 23rd Jun 2009 12:55 pm

    2. Hi Matthew
    Your hill reference made me think of one of our articles, included here, which might be useful to you in thinking about the RSA brand and organisational change dilemmas.
    http://www.brandinstinct.com/blog/2008/05/using-narratives-as-an-agent-of-change/
    Another relevant article http://www.brandinstinct.com/blog/2008/08/article-brand-engagement/
    Sam

  2. Barbara O on Tue, 23rd Jun 2009 2:12 pm

    3. that’ll be “pedalling” rather than “peddling” which is something that you do with drugs, (or ribbons and pins if you are a medieval throwback) or is that what you meant?

  3. matthewtaylor on Tue, 23rd Jun 2009 2:15 pm

    4. Oops – I’m changing it now – thanks Barbara

  4. Julian Dobson on Tue, 23rd Jun 2009 4:20 pm

    5. It’s encouraging to see an organisation like the RSA examining issues like this openly and not posturing.

    I’d suggest (being out in the sticks myself) that by investing in and supporting regional networks it will be possible to benefit more from the links and connections of Fellows and friends, while continuing with the high profile events and activities you’re renowned for. If those networks are stronger and more localised, and are trusted with the RSA ‘brand’ (for want of a better word) there won’t be the same need to drive things from the centre, or to keep all the luggage there.

    That may not be everyone’s idea of leadership, but it’s more empowering and enabling, and means that when the hill seems too steep or you get a puncture, there are plenty of others around to help and support you. And I think there’s much greater potential to have an impact on society in this way.

  5. Max Hogg on Tue, 23rd Jun 2009 4:44 pm

    6. Hmmm…a project known as RSA Drugs and the chief executive discussing peddling? Surely the House should be awash with cash?

    As something of an interloper at the RSA at the moment (I’m on secondment here) I wonder if I can offer brief thoughts on two of the three dilemmas?

    1. The House appears to work best as a business first, and a values-led part of the organisation second. I can see the frustration in this, but it seems important (to me) that the House is viewed in this way because it releases funds to be used on the innovative projects where the RSA can make a real impact.

    2. It seems to me that the RSA is like many ‘think tanks’ in that it is in the tricky position of throwing ideas out into society, and hoping that they gain traction, but never quite knowing when or where they will. Focusing on empowering people to change, rather than seeking to blame, is one such idea that the RSA embodies. It’s a great idea – but it’s hard to know when or where it will gain traction. To use the analogy of the cyclist, the RSA is cycling uphill in cloud, not quite sure where the summit is, and whether you can afford to eat another energy bar to get to that summit.

    The thing is (to stretch the analogy further), the higher the summit is, the more cruising you can expect the other side. In other words once the blame culture is discredited, and people start looking for alternatives, the RSA will have built up a strong basis of credibility to offer nuanced, considered leadership on this point.

    The most important question is when, or whether, that summit will be reached.

    Hope this is helpful.

    Max

  6. Colin on Tue, 23rd Jun 2009 9:04 pm

    7. I agree with Julian’s comments and would add that I was dissappointed with how little the RSA Networks on the website are used as a forum for exchanging ideas and informal networking.

    The blogs (such as this one) are the exception but also point up my experience (admittedly gained on the complex subject of football) that such e-networks do need to be actively managed.

  7. Duncan Lawie on Wed, 24th Jun 2009 5:34 am

    8. This does, I suppose, beg the question of whether you have chosen the right hills for the RSA to climb; trying to re-invent a society from the original Age of Enlightenment as a bearer of Enlightenment 2.0 was always going to be a hard task.

    A: How can the House “speak much more directly to the values and mission”? Handing space over to Fellows for self-organised events, perhaps? I can see how that interferes with the business.

    B: Do we really want to have a profile? Surely we actually want influence? And don’t you get that by having a track record of understanding the nuances and presenting an intelligent viewpoint which actually moves the arguments forward – whilst showing yourself able to let go of positions which no longer make sense. The RSA has an excellent track record of influence, and of letting go once the argument is established.

    C: It is my perception that the RSA has tended to work on longish cycles of enthusiasm and decay, with a small percentage of the Fellowship actively engaged at any point. Those who are interested in the current topic – whether it be Tree Planting, Standardised Examinations or Tomorrow’s Company – are going to be very active, whilst the rest will browse the journal, maybe go to lectures and use their postnomial now and then. The quiet Fellows, though, still want to feel their money is going to a good use – or at the very least that being an FRSA is not going to bring us bad karma.

    As with most things, I suspect, you are going to hear from us when we are really excited or anything more than a little disgruntled. And it’s a lot easier to irritate than enthuse!

    And I don’t think anyone has got the technology perfect. The places people really want to go to, they will put up with technological issues. If the enthusiasm isn’t there, the best tech won’t help. The British Computer Society has had massive difficulties getting a presumably pretty tech-literate bunch of people to use their forums, for example, but MumsNet doesn’t.

    One thing I have been personally delighted by is the podcasting of lectures. That is the primary thing which has most increased my engagement with the RSA in the last five years.

  8. Matt Wardman on Wed, 24th Jun 2009 10:22 am

    9. >We want to have an impact on society but we also want to work closely with our Fellows.

    I think the relationship between the two is perhaps the nub.

    Do they actually need to be held separately – i.e., network of animators plus a conference centre? Or are Fellows actually a customer base?

  9. Brian Collie on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 9:29 am

    10. Don’t be too glum, Matthew – all significant organisational/cultural change takes more time and energy than anyone ever imagines.

    My view on the House is that it is, indeed, a business first and absolutely crucial in raising funds. I have felt for the past couple of years that all of our fundraising has lost impetus, so maybe the House is a good place to start.

    I agree wholeheartedly with Duncan’s view of profile vs influence – and of letting go when the argument’s established.

    As for Fellowship engagement, perhaps we need a clearer focus on which areas we wish to prioritise over agreed timescales – allowing Fellows to contribute to areas of expertise and interest for a fixed period. This could be a key agenda point for the new Council to consider, and speaks to your point about leaving some baggage behind (or “dropping some luggage” as you put it).

    Good luck
    Brian

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!