IÂ’ve had some experiences of late that have caused me to reflect upon the RYPN discussions about volunteer groups.

I was reminded of the old theory that there are three kinds of people in the world:

Doers – they do the work under constant “advice” from the Shoulda’s and the Oughta’s

Shoulda’s – They are happy to tell Doer’s after the fact about everything done wrong, but are invisible before a project starts or while the work is done. Also, they think they are Doer’s.

Oughta’s – They know exactly how something should done by the Doer’s, but are invisible after the project starts. They, too, think they are Doer’s.

In this theory, 40% of all people are ShouldaÂ’s, 40% are OughtaÂ’s and 20% are Doers. In my personal experience, that breakdown seems fair. If you look over the last month of posts on RYPN, there has been a lot of Shoulda and Oughta talk aimed at Doers. In fact, it may breakdown close to 40/40/20%.

Why am I bringing this up?

I have seen the destruction that can happen in volunteer railroad organizations when the DoerÂ’s become overwrought with frustration from the ShouldaÂ’s and the OughtaÂ’s. Here in the NJ/NY/PA area, certain groups have been defined by this frustration. If you buy into the notion that there are 8 people with opinions for every 2 people that do work, itÂ’s easy to forsee trouble.

I have also seen the opposite, where DoerÂ’s go and do without any perception of the bigger picture, leaving everything in just as big a mess.

So, the topic I toss out to you is to ask how your groups deal with balancing the ShouldaÂ’s and OughtaÂ’s with the DoerÂ’s?



trains@robertjohndavis.com

Rob, I think you may have inadvertently left out another group in your synopsis of this situation. I think there is a group that should be called "followers". In my opinion these are people who really love to be involved, and are passionate in their own way about a given project, but because of a lack of time or experience will never be the one to initiate something. They are happy as clams to simply follow the "doer", and have no desire to be promoted within the organization to any position of responsibility.
And there is nothing wrong with having lots of followers, in fact the job(s) of the "doer's" would be substantially more difficult if not for the constant support of this group.
Some people give physical support, others financial support, and expect nothing in return. They are just happy to be able to say they helped.



SJHussar@aol.com

I agree that the followers should be considered, but aren't they really part of the "doer's" along with the other half, the leaders? Leaders can't get it all done without followers, and followers without leadership become unfocused. Rob hit the nail on the head with his observations about the other "groups".

> I agree that the followers should be
> considered, but aren't they really part of
> the "doer's" along with the other
> half, the leaders? Leaders can't get it all
> done without followers, and followers
> without leadership become unfocused. Rob hit
> the nail on the head with his observations
> about the other "groups".

In addition, categorizing how individuals fit within an organization isn't always so clear cut.

For example, a restoration may be researched and planned by someone who knows the equipment's history to a degree unsurpassed by others in the group, but the actual labor may be carried out by others who have the time and/or talent to make those plans come to fruition. Even though the "shoulds" and "oughtas" may not be doing the physical labor, their input may be invaluable to getting the best possible results. Without one, the other's work isn't complete.

So... I guess it depends on how you define the categories, and what constitutes "doing."

Does "doing" include research and planning, but not getting involved in the physical work?

If not... who exactly is a "doer" and can take credit for a project if the actual work is contracted out to an outside company... (like the URHS did with Hickory Creeck, the CNJ GP-7's, the paint on their "B&O" F-M, etc.)?

The best results are usually seen when a proper balance is maintained within a particular organization. Again, that depends on the individual needs of the group. In one case, 1 or 2 well organized "shoulds" and "oughtas" might provide enough balance to 10 "doers" who lack the skills to plan and manage a project. In another case, the numbers could be reversed and the result come out the same because more efficient "doers" offset the less efficient "shoulds" and "oughtas."

Above all... interested parties raising questions, or voicing concerns, over how a restoration is conducted isn't such a bad thing. If someone doesn't ask the hard questions, or openly wonder why "we're doing it like this," potential issues affecting the restoration can be easily overlooked.

Recognizing that process, and managing it efficiently without either side "taking control" of the organization is the biggest challenge of all. The best way is by finding a strong leader (such as chairperson, curator, etc) who will encourage open lines of communication, and who takes an objective and fair look at the concerns raised by both sides.

Without one person who can look at both points of view, the potential for failure is much greater.

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

I think all non-profit organizations have a similiar profile. The key to making the organization effective is to have a good leader -- someone who has a clear picture of what the organization's mission is, and can take all the resources available to him, share the vision with them, and steer them towards that mission.

If the organization is larger than say a dozen individuals, then not only is a good leader important, a group of leaders reporting directly to that leader, and overseeing no more than about 12 individuals themselves, is neccessary.

(NOT managers. Managers often do not have the vision of the leader, but are only focused on those needs of his group, and can cause infighting in an organization. Rather the group of leaders should share the leaders vision, and help to defuse it down to the volunteers who work with him, making sure no-one feels like they "fell through the cracks".)

Besides steering the organization as a whole, the balancing act means making everyone feel they are a vital part of the organization. After all, in most cases, we are talking about individuals giving of their free time, or working for next to nothing. If they feel unhappy or unwanted, they won't stick around. As was pointed out by someone else, everyone's talents can be used for some aspect of a project.

Don't forget that "followers" also includes professionals and business owners who don't have time to get involved with your organization directly, but are willing to write a check to fund your efforts. Many of these folks have an interest in what you do, but family and work obligations prevent them from getting involved. But, if approached, they are willing to show their support with a donation. Don't leave these folks out either, they desire and deserve recognition for the financial support they give.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a


Surviving World Steam Project
james1@pernet.net

>

>
>
>

> I have seen the destruction that can happen
> in volunteer railroad organizations when the
> DoerÂ’s become overwrought with frustration
> from up? the ShouldaÂ’s and the OughtaÂ’s. Here in
> the NJ/NY/PA area, certain groups have been
> defined by this frustration. If you buy into
> the notion that there are 8 people with
> opinions for every 2 people that do work,
> itÂ’s easy to forsee trouble.

> I have also seen the opposite, where DoerÂ’s
> go and do without any perception of the
> bigger picture, leaving everything in just
> as big a mess.

> So, the topic I toss out to you is to ask
> how your groups deal with balancing the
> ShouldaÂ’s and OughtaÂ’s with the DoerÂ’s?

There's one character that you really have to watch out for, and he's a combination of all three!
This guy shows up out of nowhere all full of "spit and vinegar". He starts scraping paint, he's there just about every weekend, and others start wondering where he's been in the organization's life, and we could sure use at least a half a dozen more like him. All of a sudden,he doesn't like the way things are being done, and he's going to make changes. He really doesn't know how the organization works, but he starts doing work that others are doing, and definitely doesn't like the way things are being done. This guy knows everything, and starts projects...after all, he knows what he's doing!
Then, you hear "I this, I that, I did this" out of this guy all the time. This guy's a one-man organization! Work with anyone? Not a chance! Everybody else is an idiot! In the meantime, others in the organization are getting frustrated when they try to do something because someone has been making contacts (we just talked to someone from your group), or doing media stories about projects that aren't really finished, and who-knows-what-else. All of a sudden this guy wants a special title and job in the group that really doesn't fit in the organization. When he doesn't get it, he takes his toys and leaves. In the meantime, those whose toes were stepped on by this guy have to "put out the fires" this guy started, and straighten out the bad vibes this guy gave off for the group. And, the projects that he worked on or started lay unfinished or are screwed up-he wasn't the "expert" he led everyone to believe. I've seen guys like this appear and totally screw up organizations. You can have a guy like this in your group, but he has to kept under control so that you can utilize his labor, without messing everything up and demoralizing the group. Guys like this seem to spot easy-going nature as a weakness to be exploited. Watch out and keep under control!



schwartzsj@juno.com