Acquisition of Leadership Roles

I wonder if a hybrid model could work where nominations are submitted by members, particularly those who have expressed interest in a given dept. Naturally members can self nominate. The Board is responsible for doing the due diligence and selecting the best candidates, perhaps with the assistance of a crew selection committee. Once the Coordinators (I prefer that term to Leads) are chosen, it could be put to the relevant members as a recommendation of the Board and some kind of member endorsement or confirmation vote can happen.

This is just an idea, I haven’t developed it into any practical model.

I think the crew can work out its own way to self organise, appointing leaders implies followers, we are looking to break paradigms here

I suggest that operational leadership moves through a model that is made up of the below phases. This is a skeleton model recommendation that can be fleshed out by the board with the caveat that, whatever the outcome, this transparent framework should be clearly communicated to and understood by the membership:

Phase 1 - Attract & Include.

Attract: The component of the framework that is designed to entice candidates to join the organisation or role. This is the telegraphing of the acquisition process to the membership and/or candidates.

Onboard: A nimble, relevant and current induction program that continues to evolve with the organisation.

Rejection management: A clear and articulate way to ensure people who do not get the role are managed ethically and positively with a consistent manner across the community/organisations.

Phase 2 - Retain, Maintain, Grow.

Retain: People who have acquired a role should feel supported and rewarded for their participation.

Grow: If roles do not improve the skills/abilities of the participant, the transformative power of the org is limited. Consideration should be given to how someone can learn through their leadership.

Maintain: The board may consider an evaluation criteria for roles, which would enable meaningful assessment for the board and the membership and a clear line of sight on where development is required. The successes, mistakes and developments of the leadership can feed into whole-of-org improvement and a learning archive.

Phase 3: Seeds & Leaves.

Aside from necessary record keeping, it is important that this phase be as human and as free from bureaucracy as possible. The rituals around births, rites of passage, and deaths are essential, and are implicit metaphors in these processes.

Seeding: Identify future succession requirements in consultation with the leader, and identifying future succession candidates. This becomes an overlapping hand-over and mentoring period that focuses on the challenges of the out-going leader.

Facilitating Succession: Identifying where leadership can move up or across the organisation. The number of hops over a given timeframe should be limited to prevent cliquing or the embedding of power.

Leaving: Tailored and Just exit management solving (or attempting to solve) for:

• Resignation & Retirement;

• Personal issues & Unforeseen events;

• Unacceptable performance/behaviour;

• Disputes/dissatisfaction.

This framework includes the power for the membership to remove any op leader at a duly convened meeting.

The above comment is for discussion and the proposal it has redirected from can be updated based on the outcomes of this discussion.

OK I had a great if nerdy chat with someone about the proposed relationship between the boards. Is this the right spot?

Here pleasse:

https://www.loomio.org/d/izhjdnYg/how-do-the-two-entities-relate-to-each-other-

Or at least - I feel like it's the most relevant thread. While boards are incolved, the relationship between the two entities seems to be the primary point? I guess it depends on the primary goal of the info