I have been doing some background research into collaborations and what thriving networks might look like, based on ideas from holocratic principles and 'communities of interest'. I have some interesting ideas to posit to this group if they are at all of any interest and can generate useful discussion and action into how the collective, that is Buqi UK, operates and functions, now and in the future.
I will explain as best I can at this initial introduction of my thoughts, research and ongoing studies.
The idea of 'holocracy' is almost, but not quite, a flat organisational structure idea and is very unlike a hierarchical one. It is underpinned by the 'purpose' of the organisation and denoted by the roles that exist which works towards that central purpose. Which is defined. There is no one individual, or group, who is a bottle neck of decision making, or power holding, but an explicit, as in stated, structure which helps to propel the decision making both individually and collectively, from within sub-groups to the larger whole. With transparency comes a capacity for all 'players' to understand the organisation and their own place within it, how they might influence decision making and how they might involve themselves. And have a say. And reap the rewards of being in the collective.
What is a Thriving Network?
A Thriving Network is such that makes explicit, and works on, power relations, using structures like roles, and deals with tension and conflict in a healthy way.
It makes contributions explicit and there are processes in place to discuss and work on how to balance the contributions of its members.
The Tyranny of Structurelessness... caught my eye! And perhaps the Buqi UK collective might have been going this way... (??)
'In the beginning there is an intent to maintain equal power amongst the community and no one person wants to step forwards to take control. However, without a known and see-able structure, certain people within the core gather the power and ultimately the opposite occurs, the power of decision making remains with a few and is opposite to what was central to the initial intention. Simply because there is no structure laid out that has been agreed, in collective terms, or a method by which to engage. In this way there is no way to understand or interact with the central body or mind of the collective'.
I am by no means throwing stones. BUT there is something here about a 'structure' and 'transparency' that could be increasingly seen and understood by all the players/participants.
A Vision
That the Buqi community UK could be a harmonious, power sharing and value sharing collective. There would need to be a tangible structure that can be seen and understood by all the various stakeholders, including the core guardians, the teachers/practitioners and the invited public/end users. That there is transparency and forged pathways to engagement and agency built in to the system.
There are various elements to the whole. A starting place could be:
Purpose & Value
Money & Value Flow
Governance and Decision Making
Building explicit power relations.
The Commons
That there is the shared and collectively owned resource, which is the teaching itself, the website, the brand, the email list, etc, and that the whole promotes and sustains the members (teachers), students and general public.
There are shared values that have been agreed upon by the core members and can be (re)-shaped by the core members.
That the structure can be fluid enough to be changed by the membership or collaboration to serve the members, done collectively and in an agreed space.
Money
Is a traditionally difficult topic, to be further explored, but is necessary if the core tasks of maintaining the organisation are to be fulfilled, where the minority are not over relied upon and in danger of burnout. There can still be unpaid contribution with a value flow that is generative, valued and creates rewards. We could also, however, develop a shared resource, in terms of a money resource, where that money could be used to support the collective and have a reserve of money for future use and stability of the main organisation. A previously trodden structure which can be copied is , by way of example:
When a workshop is put on by a teacher, or more than one teacher, that they utilise the resource belonging to the commons, (which is the website, the advertising, the email list, the brand, etc). That the income from a workshop, after direct costs, is then split, for example 10 -15% to the Commons and the remainder, are then split between the ‘players’ or teacher/s who delivered the workshop, according to themselves; the money is split in a way that serves them and is agreed by them (there is a tool for this). In this way, there is a contribution to ‘the commons’ which is money that is utilised for the furtherance of the whole and can be subsequently put to good use to serve the whole. Basically, there is a pooling of the money resource.
For example, Shen Jin is coming next month, 50 x £330 is £16,500. By holding back 10% then £1650 is an invaluable resource for the furtherance of Buqi UK. Etc. 15% is £2475. As an example.
Every workshop that is put on under the banner of Buqi Uk and which uses the 'resources' that are supplied, would thus need to make a similar contribution, as collectively agreed. Various 'pots' of money could then be allocated to various 'activities' as agreed by the group.
Source
Is a topic in its own right. Dr Shen was the main 'Source' of this work. The seasoned teachers that we see today are their own Source as they have developed their own flavour. Individuals who are new teachers, or less well known, can step into their own role as Source and can be supported by the whole in a way that is nourishing and nurturing to their furtherance, without the competitive edge of a hierarchical structure. Mutual collaboration could be a seen, understood and experienced phenomena.
The Buqi Family Collective UK – layers of participation - could consist of:
- – a group of core members, or guardians, who govern collectively and make group decisions of the whole organisation, having been given the tools and processes that allows them to do this. That those member can be heard and have an opportunity to contribute to the shaping of the organisational structure, decision making is a collaboration and there are outlined steps for participation. A flow of people in and out could be understood by the whole. And as to how to enter and exit the space.
- The inbound students and student/teacher learners can see how they can make a progression into the collective community if desired, how they can make contributions and how they can be sustained by the community
- The participators who are the public or interested parties who benefit from the offerings of the Buqi community and can also transparently 'see' the structure of the organisation. A virtuous feedback loop, as the cohesive strucutre provides more security when entering into the world of Buqi UK
Finally
There is quite a lot of background work to be understood here, to develop and create a structure.
I have had the benefit of the input from Thriving Networks who have gone before us and who are willing to share the successes and pitfalls of collaboratives. There is a real opportunity for the Buqi Community UK to have a structure that serves both the whole and the individuals within the whole. Where teachers can take up their role and nurture the new teachers coming through. Where the collaboration is self-sustaining and nourishing. With the new influx of potential teachers, perhaps now is no better time!
If this is of interest I am willing to share further.
Warm regards,
Jo
Thriving Networks & Governance of the Collective
Hi Jo
Thanks for sharing this. I have read it through and must confess that I don't understand it all so am a bit cautious about sharing views which may be naive on my side as I may not have understood some of the points.
I guess at a fundamental level I think that sharing Dr Shen's work does require us all to work together and to feel comfortable to do that. I'm cautious about too much structure as I've seen that waste a lot of time in my day job (the actuary one) and just result in a cottage industry of people doing stuff for the sake of doing it rather than because it adds value. But I guess that some structure is needed so that everyone can feel like they know where/how to contribute. A good example of yin and yang I guess
In terms of contribution to the ££ - I guess it will be important to think about how much profit is made rather than revenue and allowing for the fact that some teachers are using the income to live on. My preference would be to understand what different contribution amounts equate to (e.g. £x allows us to advertise Dr Shen's system in the following place, £y allows us to run subsidised classes for older people in xyz location for a term, £z covers the cost of some-one creating an information leaflet to share with local GPs, etc) and then decide from there how much I can afford to contribute versus how much I invest myself in promoting Dr Shen's system locally.
I have also long thought it would be good if the community of UK teachers could work together to put on joint weekend workshops with more that one teacher leading the practice. I've been doing this the last few years at Paul's memorial day class (around his birthday) and it's a lovely way to allow students to benefit from different flavours of Dr Shen's system as seen through the lens of different teachers.
Those are just my initial thoughts. Hope it's useful to keep the conversation going.
Nicci
Thanks for sharing this. I have read it through and must confess that I don't understand it all so am a bit cautious about sharing views which may be naive on my side as I may not have understood some of the points.
I guess at a fundamental level I think that sharing Dr Shen's work does require us all to work together and to feel comfortable to do that. I'm cautious about too much structure as I've seen that waste a lot of time in my day job (the actuary one) and just result in a cottage industry of people doing stuff for the sake of doing it rather than because it adds value. But I guess that some structure is needed so that everyone can feel like they know where/how to contribute. A good example of yin and yang I guess
In terms of contribution to the ££ - I guess it will be important to think about how much profit is made rather than revenue and allowing for the fact that some teachers are using the income to live on. My preference would be to understand what different contribution amounts equate to (e.g. £x allows us to advertise Dr Shen's system in the following place, £y allows us to run subsidised classes for older people in xyz location for a term, £z covers the cost of some-one creating an information leaflet to share with local GPs, etc) and then decide from there how much I can afford to contribute versus how much I invest myself in promoting Dr Shen's system locally.
I have also long thought it would be good if the community of UK teachers could work together to put on joint weekend workshops with more that one teacher leading the practice. I've been doing this the last few years at Paul's memorial day class (around his birthday) and it's a lovely way to allow students to benefit from different flavours of Dr Shen's system as seen through the lens of different teachers.
Those are just my initial thoughts. Hope it's useful to keep the conversation going.
Nicci
Thank you for replying Nicci,
It seems you did understand some of the above. Hopefully people would be interested enough to want to understand more and ask questions around the structure of the (apparent) organisation without dimsissing something that is not understood, or before trying to understand.
It seems to me that there is little transparency currently as to who makes the decisions, where the money lands, how it is shared, who gets the publicity, who gets the free places, how does one contribute in a role in order to secure an unpaid spot, how much money is held back for the bursary of learning which I understand exists, how one would apply, who decides who receives it, what is the bank account in the name of, who pays the taxes, what is the name of the organisation, who governs the organisation. etc. These are all pertinent and relevant questions if an organisation is going to present as such. And not just creating additional administration for the sake of it, but to ask some meaningful questions and having a format in which tensions can arise and be responded to. A structure that can be seen would be a starting place especially if there is to be a new swathe of teachers who are going to emerge.
From my perspective there is a difference with regards what an individual does with their own business/teaching, and what is done in the name of, and under the umbrella of, the collective organisation. Of course you would keep all the profit you make from your own efforts, for you that is your Reigate/Surrey class tructure that has been self generated, but even Paul had the benefit of using his perceived status in the wider community to drive interest and had a door opened to him for securing regular students beyond Surrey, without doubt. Many of the succesful first generation of teachers have created effective businesses by virtue of leaning into the community that was there by virtue of the community of interest and not solely by their own efforts alone. My point is that there is a collective and there is a danger of some doing better than others by positioning themselves well and by being in the right inner circle! If there is to be a mutually supportive community, which I believe is wanted, then it does need a structure that can be seen and understood by everyone who engages in it.
My thought was not that all teachers should make a contribution from their regular business/teaching activities, but that when activities are held under the umbrella of the whole organisation (and I perceive that this approach could be highly generative and collaborative for all actually) , then it would be appropriate to make a contribution to the whole. Those workshops could be advertised and held under the greater banner, and those workshops would then be a part of the collective and therefore make a contribution to the whole.
Shen Jin is coming to the UK and is about to generate a resaonable amount of revenue; and therefore profit after costs. Does all of the profit go to her and/or is some retained for the collective for organising the interest? And then what happens? At the moment certain invidividuals are doing an amount of admin and presumably for no material reward; this leads to burn out ultimately, and resentment probably. Presumably there is a vested interest somewhere.
Maybe I jumped a step too far and fast in my first post. But only to say, that I have been researching how Thriving Networks become such, that there is a structure to consider for collectives, and that there are projects that have gone before us and have found effective ways of managing self governance. That is all.
It seems you did understand some of the above. Hopefully people would be interested enough to want to understand more and ask questions around the structure of the (apparent) organisation without dimsissing something that is not understood, or before trying to understand.
It seems to me that there is little transparency currently as to who makes the decisions, where the money lands, how it is shared, who gets the publicity, who gets the free places, how does one contribute in a role in order to secure an unpaid spot, how much money is held back for the bursary of learning which I understand exists, how one would apply, who decides who receives it, what is the bank account in the name of, who pays the taxes, what is the name of the organisation, who governs the organisation. etc. These are all pertinent and relevant questions if an organisation is going to present as such. And not just creating additional administration for the sake of it, but to ask some meaningful questions and having a format in which tensions can arise and be responded to. A structure that can be seen would be a starting place especially if there is to be a new swathe of teachers who are going to emerge.
From my perspective there is a difference with regards what an individual does with their own business/teaching, and what is done in the name of, and under the umbrella of, the collective organisation. Of course you would keep all the profit you make from your own efforts, for you that is your Reigate/Surrey class tructure that has been self generated, but even Paul had the benefit of using his perceived status in the wider community to drive interest and had a door opened to him for securing regular students beyond Surrey, without doubt. Many of the succesful first generation of teachers have created effective businesses by virtue of leaning into the community that was there by virtue of the community of interest and not solely by their own efforts alone. My point is that there is a collective and there is a danger of some doing better than others by positioning themselves well and by being in the right inner circle! If there is to be a mutually supportive community, which I believe is wanted, then it does need a structure that can be seen and understood by everyone who engages in it.
My thought was not that all teachers should make a contribution from their regular business/teaching activities, but that when activities are held under the umbrella of the whole organisation (and I perceive that this approach could be highly generative and collaborative for all actually) , then it would be appropriate to make a contribution to the whole. Those workshops could be advertised and held under the greater banner, and those workshops would then be a part of the collective and therefore make a contribution to the whole.
Shen Jin is coming to the UK and is about to generate a resaonable amount of revenue; and therefore profit after costs. Does all of the profit go to her and/or is some retained for the collective for organising the interest? And then what happens? At the moment certain invidividuals are doing an amount of admin and presumably for no material reward; this leads to burn out ultimately, and resentment probably. Presumably there is a vested interest somewhere.
Maybe I jumped a step too far and fast in my first post. But only to say, that I have been researching how Thriving Networks become such, that there is a structure to consider for collectives, and that there are projects that have gone before us and have found effective ways of managing self governance. That is all.