Learning from other people's mistakes....

Since the demise of RIDES, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and talking about what makes a healthy organization. What works. What doesn’t work. I think a lot of organizations can learn from RIDES’ mistakes, and I certainly hope to as well.

Under Eunice, John and Chip (former EDs), RIDES had a collaborative environment. Management decisions, regional marketing promotions (like rideshare week), hiring, etc. were made by the staff as a team. Cathy, who ironically has a Master’s in industrial psychology, believed that the staff should follow her direction and get their jobs done. Of course, the value of a group is almost always greater than the sum of each individual part. So, I believe that lesson #1 is the need for collaboration in any work environment. I have noticed differences in judgment and motivation level, but I strongly believe that everyone has something critical to add to any work-related decision (1). Maybe some people have better recall, but no one really knows any better than anyone else when it comes to organizational decisions. Everyone has something to offer.

The real thing that brought RIDES down was bad financial management. Somehow the organization went from having something like $5M surplus to being in the red. No one seems to know exactly how it happened. I also heard that the long-time accountant (he must have been there like 10 years) actually got into arguments with the financial manager over basic accounting principles. So, lesson #2 is take care of the money.

Finally, RIDES shared proprietary information with some of their partners, without permission from the funder, and not with other partners. This, along with the financial matters already mentioned, effectively ruined the relationship with the funder and, to a lesser extent, the organization’s regional partners. So, lesson #3 is: don’t bite the hand that feeds you, and be fair and evenhanded with your partners.

Discussing this story with friends, many have noted that the non-profit structure, with the funders and board of directors, is designed to keep real community representation down (grass roots or other). This point actually refers back to lesson #1: collaboration, and #3: equality with partners. More time is spent in power struggle when it should be spent in community participantion.

However, I do think that the funder’s decision to give this contract to an international for-profit company is inexcusable. Any funding agency with real respect for the community it serves would have found a way to fill this need with local intellectual/work-force resources.

Footnote:
1) Personal decisions, on the other hand, should only be made by the individual person, and never in collaboration. You are the only one who knows what’s best for you. At least, I am. (Come to think of it, I know some people who make consistently really bad decisions for themselves. I wonder how they come to those conclusions?)