THE CASE FOR INCLUSION

Click on highlighted text to make a link to source or further information

Institutions, organisations, NGOs, charities, etc. all have diverse Communities of Ownership & Interest (COI) that include all those who think of themselves as 'stakeholders' plus countless others. Those imagined as stakeholders are typically claimants looking for a ranking in some exclusive group - the executive, members, associates, those with a substantial pecuniary interest, etc.

Alternatively, COI membership is generally unranked and inclusive by comparison but nonetheless its members are as significant - they are the grass roots and the flowers. Typically they are musingplaces' underwriters and very often they are taken for granted.

In the "common tongue" the COI idea might not yet register with some. But it's more than interesting that some people discount the common tongue implications of COI for the exclusive voice reflected in 'stakeholder' with all its ranking and status implications.

Managerialism tends to use 'key stakeholder' as a term to reinforce ranked positioning and management's perception of its own relative importance - and its importance to bureaucratic empire building. Increasingly the 'rankism' this reflects and represents is loosing its currency in 21st C administration models. Given that rank-based abuse underlies many other phenomena such as bullying, racism, sexism, colonialism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia this is unsurprising.

Click here to read more

Typically rank is imagined as carrying privileges with any obligations attached to them being minimised and downplayed. Simplistically, rankism is what "Somebodies" do to "nobodies." 

Stakeholdership, and the rankism attached to it, is typically at the root of the vocabulary privileged in public musingplaces and the sometimes contested hierarchies - silly as it is. Arguably, stakeholdership is mainly to do with the reinforcement of the ranking of administrators and their underlings. The assertion of privilege in the public arena, along with the social and sometimes informal fiscal benefits that comes with it, can be more than problematic.

In musingplaces it can be expected that their future as institutions will more and more depend upon their  social licence to operate, and importantly, those granted by their COI. Governments that levy taxes and rates to maintain anarchic and antiquated 'Ivory Towers' to present old stories are as likely as not about to loose their unquestioned authority to do so. In accord musingplaces' social licences, and their funding levels, are ever likely to come under closer scrutiny. In every context imaginable leaving a musingplace's COI out of the equation is not only folly but quite likely extremely reckless in the end.

If musingplaces wish to maintain their authority it is best done with the endorsement of their COIs. If musingplaces have a case for greater access to government funding, or corporate sponsorships, for programming or infrastructure they will need a social licence to win it.

Increasingly the endorsement of their COI will 'cut it' more than any other argument. It's especially so when musingplaces' recurrent funding is seen as being in competition with the restoration of failed infrastructure, sports facilities, street lighting, etc.

Looking to the future, musingplaces are going to have to meet new expectations and at an increasing rate as old goals are better met by new information technologies. Looking back musingplaces afforded themselves a leisurely pace and comfortable timeframes in which to achieve relatively moderate outcomes. Because most public musingplaces are imagined as 'cost centres' generally this has been translated to the relentless, and endless, maintenance of the status quo - resplendent as it is with its relaxed sinecures, comfortable expectations and status-laden hierarchies.

However, in the 21st C the current pace of change is such that status quoism is unsustainable, less desirable and disappearing behind the horizon in the vista looking back. Nevertheless, the desire to look ahead is rather compelling.

Albeit within a totally different paradigm the musingplace's role in 'making sense of the world' is, seemingly, as useful as ever in the 21st C.

However, divining the differences becomes a necessity if survival, and subsequently success, is on the agenda. Likewise, choosing 'the diviners' is as important, arguably more so. Without doubt talking to those committed to the status quo is likely to be unhelpful. Interestingly, many are likely to be  'stakeholders' and for the most part they'll be wedded to their survival and comfort within the current scheme of things.

Alternatively, the membership of a musingplace's COI is more likely to welcome and embrace, demand even, paradigm change and new opportunities. Typically, because of their inclusivity, they'll be experiencing, possibly revelling in, change in other contexts. Musingplace's COI memberships are extraordinarily diverse and characteristically come with a remarkable suite of abilities, information and experiences - and for the most part current and relevant.

SO A MUSINGPLACE WANTS TO NAVIGATE A PARADIGM SHIFT

As a consequence of all the above there is a compelling case to focus attention on the inclusiveness of your COI when reimaging your operation and envisioning a future that's likely to be driven by relentless change in the 21st C.

If your musingplace is funded from the public purse you are going to need a social licence to continue do so. Indeed, if any part of funding depends upon crowdfunding a social licence will be a necessity. As information technologies become more and more sophisticated, and as social networks expand uncompromisingly, accountability becomes harder to avoid.

Putting all this together it's easy to see the roles a COI can/will play in the granting of social licences, the winning of recurrent funding and more still. Social networking is also likely to play a significant role in the policing of the conditions attached to social licences. Likewise, social networking and information technologies are likely to flatten administrative hierarchies.

In charting a way forward for musingplaces it follows that proactively including their COIs - funding agency members, audience members, researchers, staff, et al - in the process, and early on, is most likely to be the way to go in winning the necessary social licencing. 

Sidelining your COI poses questions, too many questions, none of which would be easy, or all that comfortable, to answer - and should never need to be asked.