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

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?

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.

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.

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