- Social Service Programme: Social services are typically developed by professionals for their clients, who have minimal choice, control or influence over the nature and quality of those services. At the same time, practitioners implementing those programmes feel discouraged when their clients are disengaged; or frustrated when they find themselves mediating conflict between clients. If clients of social services were equipped with the means to surface and deliberate issues affecting them, and empowered to make collective decisions, will they better achieve programmatic goals and solve their own problems?
- We intend to support Catholic Welfare Society in training and equipping its clients to make collective decisions about the programming in Bethlehem Shelter for rough sleepers that is located at Ang Mo Kio.
- We will also support Singapore Children’s Society in training and equipping the participants about the programming in one of their Youth Drop-in Centre at Radin Mas Community Centre.
- Network: Networks convened by peers for mutual sharing and collaboration—while they aspire to be egalitarian—often depend on a convening organisation or central facilitator to define the agenda and shape its direction. Participants who show up vary in terms of their interest and ability to shape the collective agenda, policies, and norms of the network. As a result, the nature and format of such networks are influenced by a smaller group of members who can get their voice heard. What if members of such networks were equipped with a system that allows motions to be proposed and adopted though consent? Will the empowering all members with a systemic means of influencing collective decisions help improve the engagement and ownership of the network?
- We aim to support the training and equipping of network members to foster collective action on complex issues related to social mobility and inequality.
The pilot seeks to test whether a specific model of dynamic governance can result in robust decisions that capture and value the diverse vantage points of everyone in the organisation. The central question we aim to address is: If clients and staff in a social service program, together with members of a network, are equipped with a governance system that enables them to systematically discuss problems, propose solutions for deliberation, and make collective decisions, will this foster productive working relationships, enhance collaborative capacity, and support the achievement of organisational goals?
BackgroundLimits of Centralisation- There are limits to the current dominant organisational form defined by a nested hierarchical structure sometimes described as ‘top-down’, ‘command-and-control’ or ‘centrally-driven’. Research has shown that innovative and alternative organisational designs, using self-managing teams and dynamic forms of governance through decentralised or distributed decision-making may be more responsive to complex and changing environments (Frederick Laloux, 2014 Reinventing Organisations).
- Some argue that such organisational innovations and technological affordances now make worker ownership of firms viable where previously untenable (Henry Hansmann, 2000 The Ownership of Enterprise).
- Such organisational forms exhibit certain characteristics such as semi-autonomous, leaderless or self-managing teams with ways of sharing information and coordinating across groups. We hope to understand the conditions and contexts under which decentralisation works and the potential offered by innovative organisational designs.
Professional-led Social Services and Centrally Administered Activities
- Social sector programmes in Singapore are mainly administered through social service agencies that are hierarchically structured and increasingly professionalised. Many government funded programmes also expect service providers to standardise practice so that outcomes can be more easily measurable, and standards established to compare performance across providers. An unintended consequence is that it drives professionals to focus on performance targets and reduces the scope for client autonomy and choice.
- Centrally administered services can also displace ownership and involvement and may affect the ability of a programme to be more responsive to emerging and changing circumstances. As a result, some social sector programmes that are reliant on professionals services may face declining rates of engagement from their clients. Professionals and administrators may also have to step in to mediate conflicts or disagreements clients have among themselves.
- Proponents of strengths-based approaches (e.g. asset-based community development, personalised care) suggest that focusing on strengths of clients and allowing autonomy and discretion in defining how they want to be helped can improve outcomes of such programmes.
- Instead of just professional-led programmes, can clients of social service agencies be equipped to contribute to and self-manage the content of social service programmes? Will clients’ ability to make critical decisions about programming lead to better social outcomes?
Alternative Forms of Governance: Sociocracy
- Sociocracy is a form of dynamic governance designed to share power, ownership & improve collective decision-making. It has been used in both private sector corporations as well as non-profit organizations and informal social movements (Buck & Villines 2007 We the People)
- Sociocratic organisations have distributed leadership and self-governance through interconnected and semi-autonomous circles. Circles can form/close sub-circles that take on subsidiary functions without centralised approval. Organisational functions and form evolve more responsively and dynamically according to ground realities. The underlying assumption is that leaders often cannot know everything required to make critical decisions on behalf of everyone; and the attempt to do so creates debilitating bottlenecks.
- In sociocracy, anyone can change propose a change within their circle for collective decision-making through: 1) Speaking in Rounds and 2) Consent (i.e. having no objections and accepting that the decision falls within a range of tolerance instead of consensus which takes too long, or majority voting which marginalises the minority). As a result, everyone’s voice matters and no one can be ignored (Rau & Kock-Gonzalez 2018 Many Voices One Song).
Project Significance
- If an alternative form of governance for social service programmes can balance participation with oversight, then this will have sector-wide implications for the governance and management of social service programmes. Funders, government agencies and non-profit organisations may consider collaborative models of governance where participants involved have the ability to propose motions, engage in deliberation and make collective decisions.
- Examines the viability of democratising professionally-run programmes and decentralising decisions within social service agencies and its effect on 1) the social outcomes desired by the programme, and 2) administrative efficiency. Alternative forms of organisations may be able to deepen workplace democracy, employee engagement and ownership.
- Collaborative networks or informal groups may also benefit from the utilisation of such forms of ‘social technology’ that improves the way people interact, communicate and make collective decisions together.