"I might even get a nice reference..."
It's all very well gaining the security of guaranteed donor income. But the stress is astonishing. I hypothesise that the resulting strain is not about personalities but structures, yet because structures are not being addressed, it is manifesting itself in inter-personal ways: being visible, this apparently ‘proves’ to those who won't act that the problem is merely one about personalities – hence justifying their not acting. Now I feel stuck:
- Either our donor needs to historically revert themselves radically (though they have an equally valid perspective in my view); but I know their management won't, and their board whilst disagreeing with management has minimal apparent control over them, tinkering with communication-related discipline rather than tackling incipient mutiny
- Or our organisation needs to reinvent itself in the image of our donor: unlikely to happen more than incrementally given the caution of our management and board (though I have noted some significant changes such as a generally expressed desire to follow 'best practice')
- Or we should take a break from each other's embrace for a season: this is considered by the board on each side to be a bad option, not the more therapeutic ‘still waters’ I would predict if it was done soon
- Or I am 'beating a straw man': my structural hypothesis is wrong; I am the problem - and for what? I don't actually care much about the position I am defending, nor do I particularly desire to preserve the loyalty of staff whom I am afraid are inappropriately reactionary. (I have pointed all of this out to our management, highlighted it in discussions with our donor's management, and discussed it with our donor's chairman.)
