Interlude - An Association that works "For All of Us"

As I study this great American experiment in community living, I do wonder how it will turn out. Some experts say that condominiums are failing to be the social and living systems that they were intended to be. At this juncture in time, I would say, with my personal experience, that they are possibly correct.

Is such failure pre-ordained? Is it inherent in the structure of this organization and is it woven into the fabric, its very being? Are we destined, as a former board member once told me "to slip continuously into mediocrity?"

There are questions which would seem to be vital and must be asked. If we are not to simply operate out of subjective "change" which is defined as positive and negative, and based upon fundamental human issues such as fear and greed, and "winners" and "losers" then what should we be operating from?  These are questions for our leaders to ask, to answer and to express in their daily actions. Leadership on the board and by the board as a single entity is the only possible way out of the morass that encompasses this association.

Are they up to it? Are WE up to it?

I'm sure a few readers wonder where I have been going with this blog over the past 120 posts, and where I have been coming from. It's probably time to tell you. You have been very patient and gracious. 

Consider that the mantra of this group has been about "change". I suggest that is inadequate. How about "Transformation?" Transformation of the board into a force for positive change. Not "change" as we normally think of it, nor "change" as a buzzword, something desirable which we should therefore all aspire to. I don't mean change as it has been most recently expressed in this association, an association that works for some of us, or a few of us, or sometimes the majority of us. I mean a transformation into an association that works for all of us. For it is my perspective that an association that doesn't work for "all" in fact, works for none. Organizations in which "some" goals are achieved, or, in this case are working for "some" owners, are inherently inadequate.

What would that look like? Would you like to live in such an association?

It's your choice. We can all be a force for change, both positive and negative, or we can be a force for transformation. I choose the latter. How would that look on our board? As an example, such a board, that is, a board "that is working for all of us" as stewards and as leaders, would approach issues entirely from the perspective of performing their "fiduciary duties". When an issue came before such a board, each and every board member would be ready, willing and able to discuss, argue and present both and all sides of any issue or argument. By contrast, in a board that is coming from "change", individual members present or advocate only that side that serves them or a group or groups in this association.

Wouldn't that be interesting? Wouldn't that be empowering? For each of our board members to be knowledgeable in all aspects and all "sides" of the issues? To see each board member promote all sides, both the pros and the cons, of all issues, both large and small at all times, instead of the current approach that "its right" to do this and "it's wrong" to do that, or "it's just" for this to occur and "it's unjust" for that to occur.

It would be a manifestation of an association that works for all of us, each and every one of us, not a few and not the many, but all of us. It would be the manifestation of a board that is really up to the task and is seriously engaged in an inquiry about leadership and stewardship.

Will this happen here? Can this happen here? Well, as I said in an earlier post, this is 2010 and it will not be a repeat of 2009. I am committed to that.

But what are you committed to?