Campaigning for Technological Innovation in Unions
Why do some innovations grip the imagination and enjoy immediate acceptance while others, equally or more valuable, require the “hard sell?” Over the years I have tried many tactics to persuade union locals to adopt new technologies. From simple fax machines to computer networks, some ideas moved quickly through the system while others took a long time before people were ready to listen.
Technological change in unions often happens in a very haphazard way. The impetus for change can come from inside or outside unions, from members, staff or leaders to vendors, friends and family members. I’ve seen it all. In SEIU a great deal of technological innovation is pushed down to the locals from the International. The difficulty is that no one group or person ever really “owns” the technology so Unions barely scratch the surface when it comes to realizing the potential benefits. Whether you work for a Union, a progressive Non-Profit or any other type of social change organization, everyone has a stake in this debate.
I’ve written in my blog about the mixed experience of several union webmasters who authored a white paper called Unions and the Internet. There was also a prior discussion on this site about sending an open-letter to union leadership concerning technology. These methods are useful, but I think they fail when it comes to major innovations. A more comprehensive and strategic approach is necessary.
Ultimately, the more revolutionary the technology is, the more it challenges people in fundamental ways. Radically different technologies undermine how we view the world and our place in it. Sadly, it is these very same breakthrough technologies that are the most valuable to an organization. Speeding up the acceptance and deployment of them is crucial.
This resistance to new technology comes about because people fear a loss of power, a loss of effectiveness, or both. This leads to an epidemic of half-stepping, half-hearted technological commitments which in most cases are worse than no effort at all. Organizations can hardly comprehend the blistering pace of technological change that surrounds them much less embrace it. They suffer from a bad case of innovation fatigue.
I’ve argued that the most significant development in computer technologies is the potential for changing how our organizations operate. Twenty years ago we didn’t have the proper tools that could deliver on Labor’s advantage in people power but these tools are coming on-line now. The author Howard Rheingold in his book Smart Mobs correctly notes that the next killer application won’t be software or hardware, but a social application of these tools. Many organizations, Labor Unions among them, now have the opportunity to move away from lumbering command and control style structures and experiment with more flexible, grassroots models.
Drawn out conflict between early and late adopters exacts a stiff price. Once you move beyond healthy skepticism, a protracted culture war can stall the introduction of useful technologies and bleed away valuable opportunities. Sustained conflict, or worse, the imposition of rigid organizational models, renders unions both slow and stupid. It is an unsustainable position.
The trick is to persuade Labor’s current stakeholders that it is important to take technological risks even when the outcome is uncertain. But convincing people to use new technology in unfamiliar ways is difficult and requires an historical understanding of how successful innovation works. Which leads me to… the world of Inventors, Engineers and Industrial Designers!
Gaining popular acceptance for novel inventions, or even the redesigning common everyday objects, has been a preoccupation of innovators for a long time. They have learned that people rarely want to be on the “fringe” but some like being on the “cutting edge.” They understand that the success of any new tool involves managing the social expectations between people and their objects. Designers often understand how to move technological change through our organizations even when that new technology meets organizational blowback. Henry Petroski in his book The Evolution of Useful Things says:
“Especially when the technology is complicated and its goals are ambitious, the road to totally satisfactory performance and acceptance is frequently littered with doubt and second-guessing, with wrecks and breakdowns. At first, neither the designers nor the users of a new technology may fully understand it, and so its progress is impeded and it can cause terrible traffic jams.” Pg. 240.
Designers have learned that it is not sufficient to have just a “good” idea or even an “iron-clad” proof demonstrating the worth of some new thing or process. They face the same cultural and political obstacles in introducing new technology that we do when arguing for similar applications in Unions. Bruce Sterling in his book Shaping Things, talks about the environment of designing new objects:
“Progressivism versus conservatism is culture war. People who win or lose a culture war don’t merely act as if they won or lost a culture war; they genuinely win it or lose it. It’s always war – and if it’s not magnificent, then designers are losing.”
For those of us who understand the importance of computer technologies and can still muster the energy to fight for change, it is helpful to draw up some rules of engagement. If we wish to convince the “cyber-skeptics” then it pays to listen to design experience. I can testify that the best strategy is rarely a head-on offensive. For example, I’ve bluntly told organizing directors that the task of organizing workers is evolving into cyberspace and away from face-to-face interactions. Although this produces much shouting, shock and awe, it achieves little in the way of acceptance.
Both Petroski and Sterling quote Raymond Loewy (pioneer of industrial design, 1927) on his attempts to introduce new objects. Petroski says:
“But there is also an apparent reluctance among consumers to accept designs that are too radically different from what they claim to supersede, for when familiar things are redesigned too dramatically the function they perform can be less than obvious and thus possibly suspect, Loewy summarized the phenomenon by using the acronym MAYA, standing for “most advanced yet acceptable.”
What does a method such the MAYA technique have to do with technology and union locals? The main lesson it teaches us is to focus on the political, rather than the technical hurdles, and gets us to think of how to craft arguments addressing problems that people don’t even realize they have. It anticipates resistance and channels objections into actions. Basically, you are leading people to a prearranged destination, otherwise known as “marketing.” Here is my meager attempt at assembling a strategy for change.
The Path to Innovation
- How radical will the change be? Does it require users to alter their values and behaviors? How will you bait the hook to get them to try it? What is the strongest argument in favor of a particular new technology? Does MAYA apply?
- Is this new tool really an improvement? Is the perceived benefit worth the time, effort and resources that will need to be expended to employ it? Is the old method really that much worse than the new? What is the problem that the new tool is solving?
- Who are the decision makers and pacesetters? Are they outside or inside the organization or both? Is there a formal or informal mechanism for “salting” new ideas? What about internal member committees?
- Creating the Buzz. Who is responsible for making the pitch? Who makes the initial approach? Does it matter what the reputation of the individual is? Should this be a group effort? If so, how is the campaign organized? How does the group collaborate? How is the program moved over time?
- What is the goal? Is it to get a presentation face time or conduct an actual demonstration? Should there be a field project?
- What is the mechanism for feedback and change? How do problems get addressed and resolved?
These are just ideas about how to run adoption campaigns in a more organized and deliberate way. Isolation is the enemy of innovation. If proponents of new technology are disorganized than our appeal will be also. Petroski addresses the question of technological inertia. He notes that tradition often defeats innovation :
“By colonial times, the modern European ax was pretty well established and tradition-bound, and such extratechnological cultural inertia can fix the form of an artifact in its home territory in spite of its inefficiency and functional shortcomings. After all, there is no technological imperative in efficiency, which in any event is in the eye and hand of the tool beholder.”
This is the equivalent of hand-writing address labels because it’s simple and familiar. It is time to bring the technological culture war home.
- Wayne Langley's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1132 reads
Congrats Wayne
My congrats to Wayne for yet another incredibly well written, beautifully articulated piece on why the net has to become a tool to be used in the rebuilding of a rapidly dieing labor movement. Over the past ten years, i've read dozens of them.
I guess there are those who see these well thought out strategies to be nothing more than self-promotional pitches. Too bad, nothing could be further from the truth. The internet has proven to be one of the most valuable means of communication and education for WORKERS.
Therein lies the rub; it is workers who are taking advantage of this medium. They are the ones who understand the value of talking straight up, one on one. The idea the spin doctoring and the hype are culled from the dialogue has proven invaluable.
There has been some discourse about the recent Labor Notes conference, and would like to add; IMHO, even the shitdisturbers wing of the labor movement doesn't wholly embrace the value of the net. They are far more advanced than traditional labor, but still fall short of where we need go; what we need become.
Hopefully we will get some mainstreamers commenting...i'm just not holding my breath.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Possible to take an inter-organizational approach?
Good thoughts, Wayne.
Your essay seems geared to how to generate a buzz about technology within an particular organization, one at a time. My approach has been to somehow (though I have no formal plan) create a buzz at a more nebulous level.
I've always envisioned growing the Communicate or Die into a brain trust of labor-technology evangelists who can "Spread the Good News" of Internet communication. Up until now, it has been very ad hoc and informal. One thing I've always been interested in is taking things to the next level and make it more systematic. I agree wholeheartedly that campaigns should be done "in a more organized and deliberate way."
Do you think about ways to take such an inter-organizational approach to such a marketing campaign? If so, what specific things would you do to propose moving it forward? I'd love to begin formulating some kind of plan or strategy. But part of me also believes that it must be somewhat organic and spontaneous and that trying to control or channel such energy for change is fruitless and perhaps even stifling. Though probably the answer is somewhere in between.
Any thoughts on this?
I think so
This is a good site and you've done a great job with the resources available to you. If anything, I regard your goals as too modest and agree that the site would benefit from "moving to the next level."
I think some questions need answering. What is it that makes this site unique from 10,000 others? If the message is good, which I think it is, some essential connection is missing. People are not following the bread crumbs we leave. There are interesting technical posts all the time on this site, but I have yet to integrate them in my work. I'm a true believer. Why? I often look at who registers for this site and who participates. What is the general profile? Is there a pattern? Is this the audience your aiming for? If not, who would you like it to be? I refer this site to people constantly. They visit but don't register. How come?
Regardless of the outreach campaign, whether internal or external, it must be organized and have clear benchmarks. The problem with such methods as white papers and open letters is that they are too general and don't "close the deal." There is always a deliberate motor for movements even if it is not visible.
For example, with CoD, if I were going to build a "brain trust" I would map out exactly who I wanted to recruit (brainiacs?), choose a message and a hook and pick someone or some method for the outreach.
If there was no response I'd have a backup plan to reach out to them and determine why there was no response (find someone close to them to ask?), change my outreach strategy according to the feedback, be clear on the ask (what do I want them to do - pledge to contribute something once a month?), etc. I regard the proposed labor conference as a promising hook.
Ultimate success will always be organic. If folks don't like what you're selling or it doesn't fill an existing need, no amount of strategy will overcome the inertia. However, if you feel the need, and your profile fits others, then it is some indication that people like you would be interested. We are rarely that far out in front of the herd.
I am about to roll out a new communication technology plan for my local and several others involving text messages. I hope to use this space to make both the technical and political progress transparent so we all learn something. I hope I don't get fired.
I have already approched the officers of my local with forming a technology subcomittee of the executive board, all janitors, to help drive this development and maybe even assist with the proposed conference. I'm hoping our small community can be of some aid with this.
best practices
I wonder if the site might be more effective as a "marketing" tool if there was a little more play given to (and some more recent content in) the Best Practices forum. People like reading stories!
We could also think about having a "Worst Practices" section for technological horror stories - perhaps with names and local numbers changed to protect the innocent. And maybe a panel that would give out annual awards (the Deadies?) for good use of technology?
WE NO LONGER HAND-WRITE OUR ADDRESS LABELS!!!
Wayne, I have just a few comments and a question about your post. You assert that, “resistance to new technology comes about because people fear a loss of power, a loss of effectiveness, or both”. Don’t you think that the apparent complexity of the innovation has a greater relationship to the resistance? And that concern about the relative effectiveness of the innovation is, in fact, a healthy and functional skeptical reaction? Or is it about technology for technology’s sake? For instance, in my local, we would hand-write our address labels. But, when I suggested and demonstrated the simplicity and effectiveness of, “mail merge”, to our office staff, it was received with applause, high fives, and bravos. But a more complicated example, that did meet resistance, was when our International merged with the Teamsters and we had to incorporate their web-based membership data technology. It was extremely complicated; we were totally unfamiliar with how to incorporate it into our traditional office work flow. Our reaction-resistance-was based upon complexity. Not a concern about our “loss of power” or even about the “effectiveness”, of the technology. We just couldn’t get by the complexity of the set up. However, luddites we are not, and after a few months of tweaking here and adjusting there, we were able to get the system up and running, and a year later we just can’t believe how efficient and productive the system works for us. So if you/we are to ever expect the trade union movement to transition into a more technologically efficient movement, the innovations need to be presented, “marketed”, in a manner that is convincing of efficiencies and simplicity, and not with the accusation that resistance is associated with some dysfunctional, paranoid fear of power loss.
I have some questions related to your statement, “the task of organizing workers is evolving into cyberspace and away from face-to-face interactions”. Can you cite some examples of organizing that is based in cyberspace rather than face to face? Or can you cite some data resource that would provide some legitimacy to this claim? I know that Richard Freeman and Joel Rogers refer to the internet as a vital tool, but only in reference to the specific form of “Open Source Unionism”, which, by the way, I think has merit and potential for the future of the trade union movement.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
Cyberspace organizing
One of the challenges for almost everyone pushing for more technology being incorporated into the biz union model John is this idea that the net is some kind of stand alone product that will save us. Those that shun it quickly point out it's shortcomings relative to personal relationships; face to face if you will.
Therein lies the tragedy; it's a suppliment to, not a rather than. Look at it this way: Most unions have some internal communication; a monthly or by-monthly mag or newspaper. That's nice, but if all members get is spin-doctored news, how effective is it? That of and by it self won't save labor. Hell, if anything it perpetuates the model we know doesn't work very well.
Damn, now i'm rambling. The point is, interactive technology changes the mix, the very equation between workers and leaders. It has a leveling effect and allows workers to feel they are part of the picture. The classic example for me is our first year under the Youareworthmore site. We talked to thousands of workers; answered a like number of questions and had some awesome debates on line over any number of topics; including many related to how the local union ran and what the leadership was doing.
The point here is, there are ways to break out of the box. There are new and improved communication techniques that work. There is a better way to do it than the same old same old. Is it fear? Is it naivety? Is it being protective? Is it just too overwhelming? Take your pick, but the one thing we know is there are virtually few unions willing to jump in and try to become technologically savy. Sad, because until they do, little will change as we spiral downward.
Tomorrow's workforce will all be using the "new" tools of communication and if labor leaders fail to grasp that, the divide between workers and them will grow even wider.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Very Good Questions.
John, all good questions, thanks for the reply. By all means lets talk about the “legitimacy,” of my perspective. Someone should. The hard part will be trying to answer your questions simply (Unlikely).
By the way, I’m very glad you don’t hand write address labels. I only use that example because it was something I accidentally observed at my local. A couple of young organizers who we’re afraid to use an MS Access help menu. Even now, I’m not sure they can do it.
A couple of words about what I’m trying to accomplish here. I know I can be a pain about this stuff and I realize that there are hundreds of good labor people in Locals doing the heavy lifting of making technology work. I salute them and in no way would I disparage their contributions. I just feel that every success should be considered a failure to do something better. I know this is a bit extreme but there it is. I’m an extreme kinda guy.
Also, please keep in mind that this is a broad theory I’m laying out. People’s individual experiences may well contradict some or another aspect of what I say, but that doesn’t necessarily make the general case any less true. I’m aware of some downright feudal economic relationships existing side-be-side with our cherished and dominant capitalist market system. You wouldn't say that the tail wagged the dog in this instance.
So, theories are just ballpark approximations of reality that identify and explain some problems better than others. If they provide an explanation of the problems you’re struggling with then far out! If not, well, happy hunting. My ideas won't help you.
When I look at Internet and Communications technologies and attempt to sort out what’s real and what’s hype, I consider the whole discussion a moving target. If you believe in the concept of technological momentum (which I do), then the debate is anything but static. With digital technologies you’re inevitability concerned with what they are now and what they will likely become soon. Digital technologies morph and are becoming more pervasive and important every minute. We are being compelled to deal with them.
So, just like I told the union president who once said that personal computers would never amount to anything, it’s wise to keep your bets hedged, and your eyes peeled for the next emerging social relationship between people and their tools. Check out Howard Rheingold's site Smart Mobs for more information than you’ll ever want about the current state of virtual social networking. As I always say, when it comes to technological innovation, if you’re not swimming with the fish then you’re destined to sleep with them.
Second, you are right to identify complexity as an issue, or should I say a value, of technological culture. And complexity is a mixed blessing. Good outcomes, bad outcomes, like every other value. There are many problems that hinder technological adoption and I don’t mean to imply otherwise. But complexity alone doesn’t adequately explain the slow adoption of technology in Labor. Bargaining is complex, organizing is complex, running a five million dollar Local is complex.
The difference is that these are familiar and comforting challenges within a hierarchy where everyone knows who the boss is and what the rules are. It’s the same effect you get by being in the Army or a Prison. It’s terrible you’re so constrained but, hey, you don’t need to be responsible for decisions that carry unknowable outcomes.
Compared to that, the Internet and other digital technologies look like the Wild West. There are few rules, it’s powerful, its subverting the nature of work and security (off-shoring jobs for example). It’s a realm of constant change, of innovation, nasty downsides, very individualized, chaotic, scary.
You want a fear reaction, go to the President and ask them to video the e-board meeting and stream it to the Web. And why you're at it tell them you'd like to enable real time comments from the rank and file membership. Or, do the same with a bargaining session, or post your locals financials (which are a public document anyway) on the web. They’ll haul you away in a canvas tuxedo and stick you in the bughouse. Give me your address and I’ll mail you a hacksaw. I hope you'll do the same for me when I try it. Digital technologies fundamentally upset our traditional notions of democracy and participation.
Getting older has some benefits and one of those is perspective. My personal experience in purchasing millions of dollars of technology over the last 30 years is the observation that a great divide separates Labor’s reaction to, and acceptance of, stand-alone mechanical devices vs. virtual, networked devices. It’s a culture thing that goes far, far, beyond healthy skepticism. I go into this in more depth in my earlier posts so I don’t want to beat the same horse here.
And, yes, training is part of the answer, but not the training we’re doing now. Look at the labor school course offerings like the Meany Center. See any technology courses other than using spreadsheets for costing out contracts? I haven’t. Why not? Unions spend a ton of money on organizing training. The real reason they don't adequately fund technology training is they view technology as being tangential to their mission.
A revolution is underway, the outriders are galloping about shouting the “British are Coming” and our reaction is business-as-usual. The question is not that people need more training, they do, all the time. The question is why this technical training isn’t being provided by Unions in a big way.
As for examples of emerging virtual organizing, there is the Mersey Dock Workers Strike in England, the text messaging campaign in the Philippines (which is old hat now and they are moving on), there is the use of text messaging at the WTO demonstrations (which I attended and saw first hand), there is the Howard Dean Campaign. There is a more in-depth discussion of examples at: Design Notes. There are other references if you're interested.
Of course, you won’t find many examples of virtual labor organizing, that’s exactly the problem I’m complaining about. You have to look elsewhere, for-profits, non-profits, people’s campaigns, entertainment. Compared to the rest of the world, labor is “virtually” deaf, dumb and blind.
But you really don’t have to go much further afield than your cell phone for proof that virtual connections are gaining prominence. These devices are less than 20 years old and totally rule. Every time you use a cell phone you are really performing a virtual interaction. True, it’s not largely IP based (Yet) but it certainly isn’t face-to-face.
Cell phones are everywhere in organizing and the adoption of smart phones (blackberries and treos) are catching up fast. Our staff use cell phones to talk to members more than they see those members. Are cell phones optional? Sure, but try and pry them out of the hands of the organizers.
However, these very same organizers have real difficulties with PC use. Is a PC really that more complicated to use? Depends, but they are certainly more expensive and I see cost more than complexity as a barrier to adoption. I don’t talk about the digital divide much but I know it’s out there and it’s important. See: DiMaggio, et. al. for an interesting in-depth examination of the divide. However, when cost is not an issue I maintain that low income workers adopt new technologies quickly. It’s just the labor bureaucracies that are having problems.
Anyway, the logic of eventual virtual supremacy is clear if you do the math. The labor market is worldwide, communication is central to organizing, capital flows are virtual, ergo virtual communication will dominate. You think face-to-face steward networks can compete with instantaneous multi-media communication? I don’t think so. Will it totally replace drinking beers in bars with fellow unionists and friends? I hope not. If I’ve missed anything let me know.